Melco Management Accounting Research
Discussion Paper Series
No.MDP2020-003

Community capacity and accountability:
A case of transportation service development for the elderly

March 2020

Keita Inoue*
Assistant Professor, Faculty of Economics, Seikei University
3-3-1 Kichijoji-Kitamachi, Musashino-shi, Tokyo 180-8633, Japankeita.inoue@econ.seikei.ac.jp
Yoshitaka Shirinashihama
Associate Professor, Faculty of Literature and Social Sciences, Yamagata University
Masafumi Fujino
Professor, College of Economics, Nihon University*Corresponding author

The Melco Foundation
Nagoya, Japan
Discussion Paper Series of the Melco Management Accounting Research, in order to promote
the study of management accounting, has published this unfinished paper onto the Web. Pleaseobtain the permission of the author when citing this paper.

Community capacity and accountability:
A case of transportation service development for the elderly

Keita Inoue
Faculty of Economics, Seikei University

Yoshitaka Shirinashihama
Faculty of Literature and Social Sciences, Yamagata University

Masafumi Fujino
College of Economics, Nihon University

Abstract
Current studies suggest that participative accountability practices may havepositive or negative effects on communities. However, there is a knowledge gap in
the process of using mechanisms of accountability for community-based activities.
This study explores how non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and non-profit
organizations (NPOs) implement downward accountability initiatives tocommunities through participative practices. It builds upon a qualitative case study
on the accountability practices in the transportation project for the elderly in
Yamagata, Japan. It shows how enhancing community capacity was essential for
the NGO/NPO to implement downward accountability to communities. In linewith the development of accountability mechanisms, enhancing the fourcharacteristics of community capacity – the sense of community, level ofcommitment, ability to solve problems, and access to resources – enabled
NGOs/NPOs to implement community accountability effectively. It also shows
how community capacity enhances the effectiveness of downward accountability
practices. It provides new insights into the roles and challenges of accountability
in participative welfare service development, which few accounting andaccountability studies on NGOs/NPOs have clarified.
1

Keywords: Community capacity; Community involvement; Accountability; Non-profit
organizations

1. Introduction
This study discusses the role of accountability in welfare service development forcommunities. Welfare services for communities are developed and delivered based oncommunity-based activities among public sector, private sector, and community organizations. In
particular, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and non-profit organizations (NPOs) play asignificant role (Hall & O'Dwyer 2017) in delivering welfare services efficiently and effectively.
One key task of an NGO/NPO is to obtain the support of communities in implementing a mutual
aid project. NGOs/NPOs seek to increase the opportunities available for communities to selectwelfare services for themselves by encouraging community members to be involved in welfare
service delivery and mobilizing available community resources (Bovaird 2007; Pestoff 2014).
However, community initiatives are hindered because community members are often reluctant tosupport NGO/NPO activities. Facilitating community involvement is essential in conducting
community initiatives. Although recent research has argued for the effectiveness of participative
practices for communities (Agyemang et al. 2019; O’Dwyer & Unerman 2010; O’Leary 2017),
it has not clarified how challenges are resolved when encouraging community members to engage
in the public services delivery process. We analyzed how NGOs/NPOs implemented downward
accountability to communities through participative practices by conducting a case study ontransportation service development for the elderly.
In the NGO/NPO accountability literature, the term “social accountability” is often used todescribe the accountability relationships between NGOs/NPOs and their communities (O’Dwyer& Unerman 2007). These studies highlighted this form of accountability, particularly downward
accountability, as an endeavor through which community members are afforded opportunities toparticipate in welfare service development for themselves. Current research discusses theimportance of accountability in grassroots activities, including human rights advocacy orcommunity-led HIV/AIDS initiatives (Awio et al. 2011; O’Dwyer & Unerman 2008, 2010;
O’Leary 2017); micro-financing for low-income, poor, and excluded individuals (Dixon et al.
2006; Marini et al. 2017); and natural disaster recovery efforts (Taylor et al. 2014). However, theparticipatory accountability mechanisms that aid these objectives were challenged, particularly
because of the inability of community members to articulate their genuine interests in ameaningful and coherent manner (O’Dwyer & Unerman 2010; O’Leary 2017). Additionally, howcommunity involvement impacts the way accountability is encouraged at the community level2

remains under-researched (Agostino & Arnaboldi 2018; O’Dwyer & Unerman 2008, 2010;
O’Leary 2017; Yang & Northcott 2019). When literature has discussed NGO/NPO accountability
practices, it has focused on how funders of NGOs/NPOs (donors, foundations, grantors, andpatrons) have shaped accountability priorities and practices within the NGO/NPO (Dixon et al.
2006; O’Dwyer & Unerman 2008). This focus has prevailed, even in studies in which
NGOs/NPOs have instigated community initiatives (O’Dwyer & Unerman 2010). Although
recent research argues the importance of participative practices (O’Dwyer & Unerman 2010;
O’Leary 2017), little is known on how such practices can encourage accountability tocommunities.
This paper clarifies how community accountability is encouraged by enhancing the abilityof the community to resolve issues. Promoting community involvement in projects helps themembers conceive projects for themselves, which enhances the ability of the community toprovide welfare services effectively (Ebrahim 2003, 2016). However, in urban area community
initiatives, encouraging community involvement is challenging due to the extent of the agenda,
ambiguity of roles, and expectations of various actors (Chaskin 2001, p.316). We draw on theconcept of community capacity (Chaskin 2001; Saegert 2006) when elaborating on community
accountability practices. Community capacity can be leveraged to solve collective challenges andimprove the well-being of a given community (Chaskin 2001, p.295). Community capacity has
four characteristics: the sense of community, level of commitment, ability to solve problems, andaccess to resources. Therefore, we argue that enhancing the four characteristics of community
capacity enables NGOs/NPOs to implement community accountability initiatives effectively.
This research focuses on accountability issues in encouraging community members to be
involved in a transportation service development project for the elderly in Yamagata, Japan. We
acquired significant knowledge through our interviews with the professionals and the community
members who participated in the projects. The findings support the results of earlier research.
However, our approach differs from those studies in four ways.
First, we showed the need to examine how the limitations of downward accountability are
overcome during participative processes. Prior studies have argued that downward accountability
is enhanced through participative processes (Awio et al. 2011; Dixon et al. 2006; Marini et al.
2017; O’Dwyer & Unerman 2008, 2010; O’Leary 2017; Taylor et al. 2014). However, theproblem of creating and encouraging community consensus is often difficult due to the breadth of
the agenda, ambiguity of roles, and different expectations of various actors (Chaskin 2001, p.316).
In our case study, we also saw the challenges of participative process, such as objections fromsome community supporters who did not clearly understand the transportation issue for the elderly.
This shows the limitations of downward accountability. We argue that the enhancement of3

community capacity overcomes the limitations of accountability. Furthermore, during the processof enhancing community capacity, we showed that the range of accountability is extended from a
few community leaders to a large number of community members. This extension suggests thepossibility of community accountability.
Second, by drawing on the concept of community capacity (Chaskin 2001; Saegert 2006),
we clarified how the development and use of different tools enhanced accountability. O’Leary(2017) discussed how different tools, including surveys and social mappings, were developed andused to implement accountability to community. In our case study, we also saw how different tools,
including two surveys for the elderly, activity plans for the surveys, and a collective statement (i.e.,
the Prospectus) were used to enhance accountability to community leaders and members. This
supports the argument of prior research. Furthermore, we explained how the development and useof individual tools enhanced accountability in relation to the four elements of community capacity(i.e., sense of community, level of commitment, ability to solve problems, and access to resources).
Third, we clarified the extension of accountability. Prior research has paid little attention to
how community involvement impacts the way accountability is implemented at the community
level (Agostino & Arnaboldi 2018; O’Dwyer & Unerman 2008, 2010; O’Leary 2017; Yang &Northcott 2019). From the “to whom” and “how” perspectives (Ebrahim 2016), we further
analyzed how accountability differs across two surveys for the elderly. During the survey episodes,
we saw that the range of community involvement was extended from professionals and a few
community leaders to a large number of community members, other public organizations (e.g.,
the police agency), and private organizations (e.g., a supermarket). In relation to the “to whom”
and “how” perspectives (Ebrahim 2016), this finding suggests the possibility of community
accountability beyond the range of downward accountability discussed in prior research(O’Dwyer & Unerman 2008, 2010; O’Leary 2017).
Finally, we clarified the accountability process through community involvement in an
urban area, which few NPO/NGO accountability studies have discussed. In an urban area,
community initiatives, encouraging community involvement is challenging due to the extent of
the agenda, ambiguity of roles, and expectations of various actors (Chaskin 2001, p.316).
However, most studies pay more attention to the case of international NGOs that support
community issues (e.g., health and education) in developing countries (O’Dwyer & Unerman
2008, 2010; O’Leary 2017); there is a lack of knowledge on the mechanisms that encourage
accountability for community-based activities in an urban area (Hall & O'Dwyer 2017). To fillthis research gap, we have demonstrated that the four elements of community capacity are vitalfor the analysis on how to develop and use tools to enhance accountability in an urban area.
This paper is organized as follows. Section 2 details the existing literature, and introduces4the theoretical framework. It is followed by a discussion of the empirical site and the researchmethods in Section 3. Thereafter, in Section 4, we discuss the development processes oftransportation projects through community involvement. The roles and challenges of community
accountability are analyzed in Section 5. Finally, the conclusions are provided in Section 6.

2. Literature review
2.1.

Downward accountability to communities
Accountability to multiple stakeholders can be a significant issue for NGOs/NPOs whenproviding welfare services for communities (Hall & O'Dwyer 2017). Existing studies haveidentified two types of NGO/NPO accountability (O’Dwyer & Unerman 2008). The first type ofaccountability is called upward accountability. Upward accountability requires NGOs/NPOs to
be accountable to the funders of the NGO/NPO, namely, the donors, foundations, grantors, andpatrons. The second is called downward accountability. Downward accountability requires
NGOs/NPOs to be accountable to the recipients of services, namely, the beneficiaries and thecommunity users of services. Prior research focused on the upward accountability of NGOs/NPOs.
In contrast, some research focused more on downward accountability to the community users than
upward accountability to the funders by addressing the diversified needs of welfare services(Agyemang et al. 2009; Ebrahim 2003, 2016; Hall & O'Dwyer 2017; O’Dwyer & Unerman 2010;
O’Leary 2017). These studies highlight this form of accountability as an endeavor where
community members are allowed to be involved in welfare service development for themselves.
Only a few studies examine the role of community involvement in the development andoperation of accounting practices (O’Dwyer & Unerman 2010; O’Leary 2017). O’Dwyer &Unerman (2010) and O’Leary (2017) clarify the extent to which downward accountability tocommunity users contribute to the effectiveness of rights-based approaches on their development.
The rights-based approach focuses on helping developing communities assert their rights on selfdetermination and on the fulfillment of political, civil, economic, and social rights. O’Leary (2017)highlighted the importance of community involvement in the process of accountability practices.
O’Leary showed that communities are key to the accountability mechanisms as this allows for the
expression of values and beliefs that underpin the NGO work within the mechanisms. This isbased on two case studies of NGOs seeking to transform their target communities into active,
engaged, and self-determined citizens. O’Leary argues that the involvement of communities inaccountability practices is fundamental to generating transformative learning opportunities.
However, the participatory accountability mechanisms that aid these objectives were found5

to be problematic, particularly in terms of the inability of communities to articulate their genuineinterests in a meaningful and coherent manner (O’Dwyer & Unerman 2010; O’Leary 2017). For
instance, O’Dwyer & Unerman (2010) found variations, in practice, in the substantive
implementation of community accountability mechanisms and identified several challenges toimplementation, including insufficient local NGO attention to downward accountability tocommunities due to the control of locally-based NGOs by local elites who may be distant from,and unrepresentative of, local communities. Their findings questioned the rhetorical commitments
to downward accountability to communities embedded in the rights-based approach.
These existing studies suggest that participative accountability practices may have positive
and negative effects. Little is known of how such practices encourage accountability tocommunity. We focus on how NGOs/NPOs implement community accountability throughaddressing challenges in the community.

2.2.

Community accountability and capacity
Promoting participative projects helps community members conceive projects forthemselves, which enhances the ability of the community to provide welfare services effectively(Ebrahim 2003, 2016). However, in urban area community initiatives, the problem of creating andimplementing community consensus is often more difficult due to the breadth of the agenda, theambiguity of roles, and the different expectations of various actors (Chaskin 2001, p.316), whichcause challenges when implementing community accountability initiatives. We draw on theconcept of community capacity (Chaskin 2001; Saegert 2006) when elaborating on community
accountability practices. Community capacity can be leveraged to handle collective challenges
and improve the well-being of a given community (Chaskin 2001, p.295). Community capacity
has four characteristics, which are the sense of community, level of commitment, ability to solve
problems, and access to resources.
The sense of community reflects the degree of connectedness between professionals andcommunity members, and the recognition of the mutuality of the circumstances, including athreshold level of collectively held values, norms, and visions (Chaskin 2001, p.296). Although it
is often described in affective terms, the existence of a sense of community may also be basedlargely on instrumental values that allow people to cooperate in support of a common good. Prior
research argues that socialization processes based on shared beliefs and values within groups ororganizations encourage community involvement, which enhances the sense of community.
The level of commitment between professionals and community members describes the
responsibility that individuals, groups, or organizations take for what happens in the community
6

(Chaskin 2001, p.296). The level of commitment has two main aspects, which are the existenceof community members who see themselves as stakeholders in the collective well-being of theneighborhood, and the willingness of these members to be involved in community initiatives.
Community members may play a key role in designing and operating welfare service programs,
and NPOs/NGOs need to enhance their levels of commitment through their involvement incommunity initiatives (O’Leary 2017).
The ability to solve problems—that is, to translate commitment into action—is an essential
component of definitions of community capacity (Chaskin 2001, p.297). Prior research discussed
the roles of planning and controlling in achieving collective objectives (Agostino & Arnaboldi
2018; Carlsson-Wall et al. 2011). These accounting and accountability practices include
administrative types such as performance measures and social types based on shared values or
beliefs. The ability to handle the challenges of the community members can be enhanced byadministrative and social accountability practices.
Access to resources refers to the ability to garner the economic, human, physical, andpolitical resources that support community initiatives (Chaskin 2001, p.297). Accountability
practices help develop social connectedness between members within or beyond a community(Chenhall et al. 2010; Nyamori et al. 2012). Developed social connectedness can drive community
initiatives.
Two theoretical problems arise in building these four characteristics of community capacity(Chaskin 2001). The first challenge is how to develop community consensus. In community
initiatives, there are costs that need to be negotiated between the community members regarding
their specified roles and responsibilities, multiple mechanisms of accountability, and resource
allocation (Chaskin 2001, p.315). The second challenge is how to operate community initiatives
based on a developed community consensus. The sense of community and the level ofcommitment depend on the levels of consensus among the community members. The ability tosolve challenges depends on the effectiveness of the operation of community initiatives. These
two challenges are mutually connected and are related to the development process of community
initiatives. For instance, the operation of community initiatives may foster consensus or alleviatetensions in negotiation, which enhances community capacity.
Moreover, prior NPO/NGO accountability literature has argued the importance ofanalyzing “to whom” and “how” accountability is implemented (Ebrahim 2016). Through thecase study on the transportation service development project for the elderly in Yamagata, Japan,
we examine the accountability practices in community-based activities from these two
perspectives.

73. Research site and methods
The context of the community transportation project

3.1.

The project was conducted in a community called Minami. This community is locatedsouthwest of Yamagata City, Japan, and is a 10–15-minute drive from the city center. Several bus
lines run through Minami, which has a population of about 18,000. Its population aging rate isabout 23%, which is a few percentage points lower than the national average. Elderly residents in
Minami face challenges in commuting to the city center and large hospitals. However, Minami is
not perceived as a problematic or rapidly aging district, so the community residents do not
perceive the transportation challenge as a very pressing issue.
Two types of professionals play a key role in this project. One is a Chief Care Manager who
is the head of the Minami Elderly Support Office (ESO). An ESO serves as a one-stop consultation
desk for the elderly (and their families) to find and plan proper elderly care1. The ESO also holds
seminars and workshops on care prevention. The Chief Care Manager is one of the initiators of
this community transportation project. At the Minami ESO, three other elderly care professionals
work under the Chief Care Manager. In the project, they help the Chief Care Manager organize
and conduct project meetings and community events while providing regular consultation
services.
The Minami ESO was established in April 2016. Yamagata City commissioned an NPO to
operate the Minami ESO. In addition to running the operations of the Minami ESO, the NPO
provides a variety of elderly care services, such as daycare, short stay, home care, and nursing carehomes. The Minami ESO attracts new customers for these services through the consultation
services. The operating expenses of the Minami ESO are financed by the commission fees paid
by Yamagata City. The Chief Care Manager of the Minami ESO has to prepare annual plans andsubmit them to the city government.
The other category of key professionals in this project comprises the community social
workers who work at the City Council of Social Welfare (CSW). The City CSW is an NPO/NGO
that provides community support services for the disabled, families with children, the elderly, andthe needy. Government subsidies and commission fees account for about half of the revenues of
the City CSW. The plans of the City CSW are developed in conjunction with the city’s social
welfare plans.
One of the community social workers at the City CSW was appointed in April 2016 to lead

1

Yamagata City is divided into 13 districts. Each district has an ESO.
8the lifestyle support and care prevention services for the elderly in Minami. This position was
called the Lifestyle Support Coordinator (LSC) in the city plan. Yamagata City contracts this roleto the City CSW. The salary of the LSC is funded by the commission fees paid by Yamagata City.
The LSC, as well as the Chief Care Manager at the Minami ESO, are the initiators of thiscommunity transportation project.
In addition to these professionals, the section managers of the Yamagata city government
are involved in the project. They continuously participate in project meetings and community
events. They explain existing city services, regulations, and finances. Additionally, they often
argue that residents should address community issues on their own. This argument implies that
residents should not expect additional government spending on new transportation services.
The city government plans and manages the programs for elderly care, community support,
and community transportation. The relationships between ESOs and the City CSW are outlinedin the city plans. For example, the city plans state that LSCs should collaborate with ESOs tofacilitate the social involvement of the elderly, information sharing, and networking among
stakeholders. In the plans, ESOs are expected to address community issues related to aging.
However, the issues to be addressed are left to the discretion of the ESOs. None of the plans
specify the issue of community transportation for the elderly.
There are various community groups in Minami. The community groups include 20 blockassociations (called “chonai-kai”) and a coordinator of the associations (called the District CSW2).
The operating costs of these groups are financed by city subsidies and membership fees. Most of
the groups have a president and board members who rotate every few years. They do not receive
a salary, but are given a small allowance. Some of the group presidents and board members
participate in the project meetings during the later stages of the project.
The professionals and the community groups have several regular forums. ESOs holdnetwork meetings, report the annual activities, and explain the business plan.

The City CSW and the District CSW are different organizations. The District CSW receives
subsidies from the City CSW. We describe the cooperation between both organizations later.
2

9Figure 1: Timeline of the project.

3.2.

Data collection and data analysis
This research took the form of an exploratory case study on a community transportation

project for the elderly. As Figure 1 shows, the project started in April 2016. A few months later,
the researchers started participating in the project. The project was dissolved in the summer of2018 because different community groups used different approaches to the community
transportation issue. Multiple stakeholders, such as NPOs, the city government, private companies,and community groups were involved in the project. We expected that this inter-organizationalsetting could provide the opportunity to analyze the accountability mechanisms in the network of
public and private organizations. However, as the project continued, the involvement of thecommunity groups became key to its development. As a result, the community-centered featuresof the project made it possible to observe micro-interactions among multiple stakeholders,
including the community groups, and the actual practices of accountability at the community level.
Data were collected through interviews, participant observations, and a study of
documentation. One researcher conducted a statistical analysis of data collected from surveys, andpresented the findings of the analysis at community events. At least one researcher participated in
11 project meetings with the professionals and the community group leaders. These meetings were
not regular. Participants discussed how to design survey questionnaires, how to analyze survey
results, how to show the results to residents, and so forth. The researchers also participated in threecommunity events. At the events, we participated in group work with the community members
and discussed community transportation topics, including how to use a bus to go to the city center10and the transportation services that are useful to the elderly. The details of these events andmeetings are listed in Table A4.
A total of 21 formal interviews were conducted with the stakeholders of this project (seeAppendix). Typically, these lasted between 30 and 60 minutes, with an average of 45 minutes. Allinterviews, except one, were recorded and transcribed. The interviews were in three categories.
First, we interviewed project members who regularly attended project meetings and events. They
consisted of the professionals in the NPOs and the managers in the city government. Two
professionals who were identified as the core leaders of this project were interviewed several times.
The interviews were relatively unstructured, but revolved around a few main themes, which
included the current state of the project, relationships with other members, motivation for the
project, and the expected outcomes of the project.
Second, at the later stages of the project, we interviewed the community group leaders, theprofessionals, and the city managers, who participated in project meetings and events. There were
two rounds of interviews. In the first round, a recorder was not used since the participants were
not accustomed to having interviews. The interview notes were transcribed after the interview.
However, in the second round, they accepted being recorded.
Finally, we interviewed the superiors of the two core professionals. Through theseinterviews, we collected data on the accountability practices of the NPOs where the professionals
worked, their superiors’ impression of this project, and their subordinates’ participation.

4. Case study of community transportation project for the elderly
4.1.

Community survey as an accountability mechanism
The Minami ESO has received complaints from some elderly residents in the city who statethat it is a challenge for them to travel to hospitals and nursing homes and go shopping. The caremanagers’ main role is to create care plans for the elderly to address their challenges. However,
the Chief Care Manager at the Minami ESO thought that the ESO works not only toward
providing such specialized services but also contributes to the community.
Really, the Minami district has its charms, like the motivation of its community leaders. It’s
written there that we’re going to make this Minami District “a district of peaceful living”.
Under the governmental policy of promoting a Community-Based Integrated Care System,
it is said that ESO should be the central agency for implementing that. But we truly want tomake this district comfortable to live in. So, since the goal is clear, if we put our minds to it
11and work unwaveringly, we should really be able to do a lot of different things, you know.
(16/08/24, Professional 1)
As this quotation shows, this professional considers contributing to the community a goal
toward which they can work; her statement was in response to the concerns of the community
leaders of the Minami District. The community leaders held a meeting almost every month. Onlya few of Yamagata City’s 13 districts have a monthly meeting. Such meetings strengthen ties
among Minami’s community leaders and indicate a sense of community, which is one of thecharacteristics of community capacity (Chaskin, 2001).
The professionals had been regularly attending these monthly meetings. Their participation
has reinforced the ties between them and the community leaders. Community cooperation isessential for the ESO to contribute to the community. Their participation in monthly meetings ismeant to guarantee access to community resources (Chaskin, 2001), which they think is necessary
for the ESO to run community activities.
This suggests that Minami was already equipped with a certain degree of community
capacity. However, the professionals recognize that the community’s capacity was not adequate
for grappling with the challenge of arranging transportation services for the elderly. In theinterview, the professionals explained the limitations of the community’s capacity to mobilize on
this front, as follows:
As a professional of social welfare, I have a belief that ‘this would be an ideal world’, but
area residents haven’t learnt social welfare; they are really just living there, and there is adifferent degree of enthusiasm of the people who just think that they want to generally
improve their own area. Even if we give advice based on only our own thoughts, like ‘Since
we’re expecting this kind of future, we should be doing this’, there are, of course, residents
who say things like ‘No, not right now, we ourselves can’t do that, and can’t think that far.’”(16/8/23, Professional 2)
An ESO starts various things, so residents get pretty tired, as they get dragged into those.
So, we see their tiredness and get them involved or, sometimes, do the tasks by ourselves.
We also help out with the difficult parts. We work together in that way. (16/08/24,
Professional 1)
Although the professionals had heard that some elderly residents had trouble accessing
transportation services, they initially did not regard it as an issue to address as a whole community.
After the professionals visited and interviewed the people who seemed to have a challenge with12

transportation, they finally realized that the transportation issue required community involvement.
As mentioned above, the community leaders have a general shared understanding ofwanting to improve the community. In order to work on the transportation issue as a community,
the professionals recognize that it would be necessary to turn this general sense of community
towards a shared understanding of the specific issue of transportation. The professionals held aforum to explain the cases of the elderly they had interviewed (in relation to the transportation
challenges) to the community leaders.
The forum was open to all residents. However, getting people to attend community events
like this forum is always a challenge. Some community leaders attended the forum in response toappeals made by the professionals. Their participation depended on the relationship with theprofessionals. Others who had a relatively weak relationship did not attend the forum. Very few
ordinary community members were present at the forum.
The discussions at the forum fostered shared understanding among the community leadersthat the transportation issue was critical. However, they still doubted the necessity of their being
involved in the issue, and tackling the issue at a community level. Some community leaders
wanted to know more about the number of elderly residents who had challenges with theirtransportation and where they lived. The qualitative evidence gathered by the professionals’
interviews did not function as a strong accountability mechanism for the community leaders. To
mobilize a stronger accountability mechanism, the professionals implemented the community
leaders’ idea of conducting a residential survey on the transportation issue.

4.2.

Limited access to community resources
The professionals designed the questionnaire of the survey, and planned how to conduct thesurvey. It was important to ensure that the surveys covered the whole of Minami in order to gather
information about the number of elderly residents who faced challenges with their transportation,
and where they lived. The professionals expected that over 1,000 elderly residents would becontacted.
Due to a lack of funds to meet the expenses of the survey (for example, the expense of
printing questionnaires), the professionals requested funds from their own organizations. However,
the organizations were reluctant to donate the large amount of money that would be required tocover the postage cost for over 1,000 people. In order to save costs, the professionals concluded
that there was no other choice but to ask community supporters to administer the questionnaires.

13

A community supporter is a volunteer selected from amongst the residents3. No expertiseis needed to become a community supporter. The City CSW states that the purpose of its activity
is to promote support systems for the elderly and the disabled in the neighborhood. In Minami,
about 100 supporters were registered at the City CSW. Their activities include attending onceevery-two-month workshops, distributing a booklet on city welfare services, and making door-todoor visits to the elderly and the disabled.
The community supporters are to be rotated every two years. However, many serve several
terms in succession because the community members are usually reluctant to take on this role.
The community leaders usually struggle to find enough candidates to fill the positions. This
challenge indicates that the community supporters basically have a weak sense of community(Chaskin, 2001).
The professionals do not have regular contact with community supporters. The
professionals decided to participate in a workshop to approach the community supporters for theircooperation in the survey. At the workshop, which almost all the community supporters attended,
the professionals explained the importance of the survey as part of a community-wide effort toaddress the transportation issue. As mentioned above, the community supporters are required to
distribute booklets once a year. The professionals wanted the community supporters to administer
survey questionnaires along with the booklets. However, at the workshop, they faced objections
from a number of the community supporters, who said that it was not their responsibility to
distribute the questionnaires.
It is difficult for community supporters that have a weak sense of community to have ashared understanding of the transportation issue. Some community supporters who lived in areas
with poor transportation access (hereafter, “inconvenient blocks”) were more cooperative thanthose who lived in areas through which several bus lines passed (hereafter, “convenient blocks”),
as the latter group did not recognize the transportation issue requiring a community-wide effort.
This lack of community capacity of supporters limits the downward accountability of theprofessionals with regard to the transportation issue. Only a few supporters accepted the requestfrom the professionals to administer the questionnaires. As a result, the professionals had a
response rate of only 16% for the survey. In the convenient blocks, the response rate was close to
zero. In spite of the explanations given at the workshop, the professionals had limited access tocommunity resources, i.e., cooperation from community supporters (Chaskin, 2001).

The city government gives the community supporters a small allowance (6,000 yen, which isabout 50 euros). This is inadequate compensation for their tasks.
3

14

4.3.

How to focus a sense of community on a specific issue
As mentioned earlier, for the survey, the professionals intended to enhance the downward

accountability to the community leaders and thereby elicit their cooperation in tackling thetransportation issue as a community. The professionals realized that the low response rate would
force them to compromise on the accuracy of the survey results, but, in order to ensure thelegitimacy of the method of analysis, the professionals asked an academic researcher, one of theauthors of this paper, to analyze the survey results.
The professionals held a meeting after the researcher prepared the tentative results of theanalysis. They invited the community leaders to the meeting, and presented their findings to them.
The community leaders were very interested in the results. Their interest was evident from theirrequest that the results be presented in a way that would help them understand the characteristics
of each block.
Professional 1: This survey result shows the characteristics of each block, you know.
Community leader 1: I think that if you bring it to the fore in your presentation, the audiencecan easily understand, and then they can figure out more specific measures against it.
Researcher: For this discussion, I wonder if you have some specific blocks to be highlighted
because the blocks particularly have trouble with transportation. How about [Block A]?
Professional 1: [Block A] and [Block B], I think.
Community leader 1: [Block A] and [Block B].
(2016/11/16, at the project meeting)In addition to this quotation, the community leaders made further requests to show detailed
analyses, such as an analysis on specific purposes of transportation and an analysis broken down
by age. In response to these requests, professionals and researchers revised the presentation formof the survey results. This revision helped the community leaders understand that thetransportation challenge should be addressed as a community issue. The detailed analyses showed,
for example, that the elderly residents are the ones for whom it is most challenging to visit thecommunity center. At the community center, the community leaders often hold block events, suchas workshops on physical exercise or hobbies. Their concern is that there are only a few
newcomers to the events. When the professionals present the result, the community leaders
appreciate that one of the causes for their concerns could be related to the transportation issue.
15

Professional 1: According to the figures we see here, the elderly residents have difficulty
accessing the community centers.
Professional 2: I think the results may indicate that, at a certain age, people don’t go to thecommunity center and stop engaging in a hobby.
Community leader 1: I see it as a problem.
Professional 2: If you can provide more data on this topic, I think each block will be driven
to consider some preventative measures for the elderly.
Community leader 2: It seems that we have to think of some preventative measures.
Researcher: Okay, as for hobbies, you mean it’s better to show the results by age?
Community leader 1: For example, we have a health workshop called “iki-iki salon,” butwith almost the same people join the workshop. No newcomers. This workshop is essential
for almost all blocks to hold it.
Community leader 3: We have various events such as “iki-iki salons” and physical exercises.
As you know, some people cannot come. How can we help them? We always talk about
this, but we have no good idea. It may be related to this [transportation] issue.
(2016/11/16, at the project meeting)Through these interactions between professionals and community leaders, the presentationof the survey results analyzed from multiple perspectives (e.g., by each block, by age, and thespecific purposes of transportation) had been developed. It fostered community leaders’
understanding of the importance of taking on the transportation issue as a community. The
community leaders’ general sense of community is related to a specific sense of the community
regarding the transportation issue.

4.4.

Community leaders’ commitment to the survey
At the project meeting, the community leaders also realized that some parts of the survey

analysis could not present a real picture of each block. The professionals explained that this was
likely caused by the low response rate. The community leaders understood that the low response
rate was because of the lack of cooperation of the community supporters. As mentioned above,
the professionals directly asked the community supporters to administer the questionnaires. The
community leaders saw this as a challenge.
Community leader 1: I think there were probably only a small number of respondents inthe survey.
16

Professional 2: Yes. The response rate was only a little over 10%.
Community leader 1: OK. The result was the result. I accept them. The survey did show
this result. You should say that you wish to expand the survey to collect about 50% to 80%
of responses next time you ask for cooperation. […] As for this survey, there were initiallysome challenges with how to administer the questionnaires.
Community leader 2: I think that if you talked to us [before the survey], we might have been
more involved, and we would have different results.
Community leader 3: Many questioned the validity of the survey method. So, as[Community leader 1] said, I think we should conduct not only this survey but also thesecond and third ones.
(2016/11/16, at the meeting)
As this quotation shows, the community leaders came to a shared understanding on theneed to tackle the transportation issues through community-wide efforts, and proposed a second
survey. They also mentioned that they, as community leaders, would be involved in the second
survey, eliminating the need for professionals directly requesting community supporters toadminister it.
The community leaders’ commitment to the second survey became apparent at the second
community forum held a few weeks after the project meeting with the professionals. This forum
was held as an occasion to inform community leaders and members of the survey analysis. Since
the survey was requested by the community leaders in the first forum, it was only natural to use
the second forum to report the survey results.
In response to requests from the leaders in the project meeting, the analysis of each block
represented by each leader as well as the analysis of specific purposes of transportation werereported in this forum. After the report, participants were divided into groups of seven to eightpeople, and group work was implemented wherein the group members discussed thetransportation issues in the community.
As with the first forum, participation in the second forum was voluntary. Though
professionals and community leaders widely called for participation, only a few community
supporters joined this forum, which brought the total number of participants to about 15; this was
not a great increase from the first forum.
Participants in the forum included the president of the District CSW, an assembly of thecommunity leaders. This president had been an acquaintance of the professionals and had beeninterested in transportation issues. He could not attend the project meeting with the professionals
in which they discussed the survey results for business reasons. At the end of the forum, this17president declared that the District CSW would administer the second survey in collaboration withthe professionals. This was the first occasion during which community leaders expressed theircommitment to transportation issues.
Furthermore, commitment to the second survey was incorporated into the formal
accountability mechanism of the relevant professional organizations and community
organizations. The Minami ESO stipulated that they would seek to provide transportation support
for the elderly as the only priority policy in their annual plan to be submitted to the City. The City
CSW included the survey in the action report of a social worker in charge of the Minami district.
In addition, the survey was listed as the top item in the priority initiatives for social workers to besubmitted to the Minami ESO. As well as these professional organizations, the community
organizations, for example, the District CSW, state survey administration as one of two new
projects listed in the annual action plan.
In all of these documents, there were no descriptions of the first survey. The first survey was
designed voluntarily by the professionals in their pursuit for identifying community challenges,
while the second survey was stipulated in the formal action plans and reports. As we will see later,
this promoted further access to communal resources.
The purpose of the community leaders’ commitment to the second survey was not merely
to enhance the accuracy of analysis. As stated above, the community leaders usually struggled tocall for participation in block events. The community leaders hoped that this survey would provide
an opportunity for more residents to be interested in communal issues. In a project meeting withthe professionals, one community leader made the following statement:
Community leader 3: All people involved in social welfare have this sort of issue more or less in
mind. But, honestly speaking, we know the current social trend that everyone is busy. That’s why it isdifficult to discuss or express this issue, I think. In that case, it might be worth doing a survey several
times as a way to overcome this difficulty. (11/16/2016, at the project meeting)Through interactions with the community leaders, the professionals’ awareness regarding
the survey changed. In the first survey, the professionals were trying to identify concrete
transportation services and obtain data for introducing them. However, they realized thatfacilitating active participation of the community should be prioritized over service introduction.
In an interview conducted before the implementation of the second survey, one professional stated
the following:
I think it is necessary to conduct a survey and focus on things that are desired in each block. But,

18

after all, that is not something that is easy to work out, so I would like to support the voices of the residents,
such as, “we want to do this or that” and “this is what must be done,” without rushing too quickly to builda system. That is what I think. (4/21/2017, Professional 1)

Both the community leaders and the professionals hoped that the second survey would
enhance the awareness of more community members on transportation issues for the elderly. In
the first survey, the accountability targets did not extend beyond the community leaders, while, inthe second survey, the accountability targets were expanded to encompass wider community
members.

4.5.

To translate commitment into action
According to Chaskin (2001), the ability to solve problems has to do with how to translatecommitment into action. To implement the second survey, actions such as designing, distributing
and collecting the questionnaire forms are required.

4.5.1 Design the questionnaire
Though the questionnaire form of the first survey was completely designed by theprofessionals, the community leaders joined them to design that of the second survey. The
professionals and the community leaders held several project meetings to discuss how to design
the questionnaire form.
Bovaird (2007) suggests that, in the process of co-production between professionals and thecommunity, the responsibility for action tends to be obscure. In designing the questionnaire of thesecond survey, there was a time when tensions were heightened among participants over whichparty was responsible for the design. This happened in a board meeting of the District CSW whereparticipants discussed the draft questionnaire.
The professionals developed a draft questionnaire that reflected discussions with thecommunity leaders, and brought it to the board meeting of the District CSW. Although theprofessionals were not board members of the District CSW, they had been permitted to participate
in the board meeting for some time. The design of the questionnaire was added to the agenda in
the board because, as mentioned above, the survey administration was incorporated into the action
plan of the District CSW. The board meeting was attended by community leaders, who had lesscontact with the professionals, and the discussion on the questionnaire from that meeting extended19

access to communal resources (Chaskin, 2001).
However, in this board meeting, the community leaders made endless requests regarding
the details of the questionnaire, including removing questions that could infringe one’s privacy,
adding multiple choice questions, and reducing the number of questions. These requests werereceived by the professionals not as constructive opinions but instead as irresponsible critiques.
One professional in the board meeting refused to collaborate further by saying that she would notdesign a questionnaire if these critiques persisted.
As we were bombarded by an influx of these complaints (requests on the questionnaire), I told
them that this was not at all meant as a request for a survey on behalf of the Minami ESO and the City
CSW. We developed this draft, consulted with the professionals, then brought it here, as we thought itwould be difficult for the District CSW to design and devise this kind of questionnaire from scratch. We
were happy without it. (4/27/2017, Professional 1)

The community leaders appeased the professionals by saying that it would get them introuble. The community leaders mentioned that the survey administration was incorporated into
the annual plan of the District CSW and explained that, for this reason, they were aware that theymust conduct the survey. It was decided that the professionals would remain responsible fordesigning the questionnaire, and the community leaders promised to cooperate in order to conduct
the survey.
The community leaders’ commitment to the survey administration was incorporated into
the formal accountability tool, and this can be seen as perpetuating their action to cooperate indesigning the questionnaire form. This community leaders’ action represents the ability to solve
problems (Chaskin, 2001). This ability derived from their commitment sustained the process ofparticipatory accountability for the transportation issues.

4.5.2 Develop Prospectus
The professionals and the community leaders agreed to once again commission community
supporters to distribute and collect the questionnaire form. However, some community leadershesitated to commission this responsibility to community supporters. At first glance, it seems thecommunity leaders who appointed community supporters would have easy access to them.
However, as noted above, many residents were reluctant to undertake the role of a community
supporter, and the community leaders often struggled to find candidates. For this reason, thecommunity leaders were apprehensive about asking those who agreed to undertake a community
20

supporter’s role to also undertake the task of distributing and collecting the questionnaire.
In the project meeting, the professionals and the community leaders discussed postponing
the survey administration for a year. The second survey was scheduled right after the selection of
the community supporters, which happens once every 2 years. If they postponed the survey until
the next year, they could avoid the imposition of this additional responsibility on the community
supporters who had just been selected.
However, complaints were heard from the community leaders regarding this passive accessto community supporters. According to the annual plan of the District CSW, the community
leaders and the community supporters were supposed to hold a “gathering” at least once a year to
discuss how to address communal challenges. However, in actuality, some community leaders did
not hold such a gathering. The board member of the District CSW thought that transportation
issues for the elderly were precisely the communal challenge that needed to be discussed in thegathering and, as an effort to tackle this challenge, they thought they should ask community
supporters to help with taking the survey.
The problem was how to associate the transportation issue for the elderly with the holdingof the gathering. The professionals and the president of the District CSW jointly created a“Prospectus” that explained that the transportation issue for the elderly was an important challenge
for the community, and that a survey would be conducted to identify the problem. Moreover, theProspectus requested that the community leaders hold a gathering with the community supporters
in order to talk about these community challenges.
The professionals did not personally sign the Prospectus; rather, the Prospectus wasformally approved by the professional organizations and community organizations to which theprofessionals belonged. It was distributed in the annual welfare meeting that was sponsored by
the District CSW, to which all the community leaders were invited. It explained the need forholding a gathering with community supporters.
In conformance with the Prospectus, most community leaders held a gathering with thecommunity supporters they appointed. In these gatherings, the community leaders asked
community supporters to distribute and collect the questionnaire on transportation issues for theelderly. However, similar to the first survey, it was difficult for community supporters living inconvenient blocks to understand the meaning of the survey. One community leader from one ofthese blocks explained the passive response of community supporters when asked to cooperate in
the survey as follows:
Their response was not quite enthusiastic. It seemed they thought, “why do I have to do it? It justsounds like extra work.” (4/2/2019, Community leader 4)

21

The Prospectus was effective in getting community supporters to understand the reason
why their cooperation was needed. The same community leader explained the importance of thetransportation issues for the elderly in accordance with the Prospectus, as well as the need for thesurvey, to skeptical community supporters.
Well, you have this kind of document in place, based on which you can fully explain the matter tocommunity supporters. Only then do you get what you want. [Otherwise] they would say, “why do wehave to do this?” (4/2/2019, Community leader 4)

There are times when the professionals attended the gathering and explained the survey tocommunity supporters. Since the Prospectus was signed by professionals, their direct explanation
at the gathering made it easy to gain an understanding from community supporters.
I invited [Professional 3], a person in charge. If I would explain it, well… I would only have totalk about what I heard. I believe that would do to some extent, but I serve only as an intermediator, so if,
for example, I receive a lot of questions like these, there are many things I do not directly know. It wascertainly better to invite [Professional 3], who was in charge of actually surveying the questionnaires
from community supporters, and to hear directly from her. Otherwise, it would not work this well.
(4/2/2019, Community leader 4)Thus, thanks to participation in the second survey of community supporters living in a block
where the collection rate was zero in the first survey, the questionnaire collection rate increased tomore than 50%. In some blocks that had demonstrated an understanding of the transportation
issues, the collection rate improved by 100%. The overall questionnaire collection rate was 82%,
which is a large increase from 16% from the first survey.
In conclusion, although the community leaders expressed their commitment to the second
survey administration, they were faced with issues characteristic of this participatory process, suchas unclear responsibility and extended time because of the increase in the number of participants.
These issues could lower the ability to solve problems when it comes to putting the commitment
to the survey into action. However, since the professionals and the community leaders jointly
designed the survey questionnaire, as well as a formal document stating the need of the survey,
the Prospectus, they were able to avoid such a decrease in the problem-solving ability. The
questionnaire was thus developed, and, thanks to the cooperation of the community supporters,
the questionnaire collection rate was high.
22

4.6.

Extension of accountability
In the second survey, one researcher, who is a coauthor of this paper, performed an analysis,

as in the first survey. After obtaining the tentative results of the analysis, the professionals invitedthe community leaders to hold a meeting. Four leaders who had all been collaborating with theprofessionals since the launch of the project participated in the meeting. In the meeting, first andforemost, the collection rate, which exceeded 80%, was reported, and the efforts of the community
leaders were praised. Unlike the first survey, the community leaders did not raise doubts about theanalysis, and many of them responded that the analysis enabled them to fully understand local
states of affairs. For example, the survey showed that the proportion of people walking to the
nearby clinic was lower for those living on inconvenient blocks than for those living on convenient
blocks. With regard to this difference, one community leader made the following statement:
I think that urban integration is, to some extent, more advanced in [Block C] and other districts ascompared to [Block A]. I think that this would be reflected in the survey results, and, as expected, therates were 10% to 30%. This is a huge difference. It means it was three times higher. (11/27/2017, at the
project meeting)This quantitative analysis on the local state of affairs revealed that the accountability for thecommunity leaders largely increased in the second survey compared to the first survey. It allowed
the community leaders to properly understand circumstances surrounding the transportation
issues. Their further aim was to attract interest from wider community members based on theseanalysis results and to get them to be actively involved in the transportation issues. In a meetingwith professionals, the community leaders were concerned about how the survey results could be
used to draw interest from community members.
Community leader 1: How can these be… There are many opinions, such as, you cannot justcollect statistics and finish the project. How can we respond to these claims? That is what we are seeking,and I feel we’ve almost reached this point. (11/27/2017, at the project meeting)Community leader 5: You are talking about the next step. Given this questionnaire survey, whatshould we do next? We took the trouble to administer a survey, and what comes next? Is there anything?
(2/7/2017, at the project meeting)To inform wider community members of the second survey results, the professionals
23

decided to report the results in the annual debriefing session of the Minami ESO, entitled “theNetwork Meeting.” The city welfare plan required the Network Meeting to be held once a year,
and it was composed of various sorts of professional organizations (medical institutions, police
agency and financial institutions, etc.) and community organizations. The Minami ESO invited alarge number of community members, including community supporters, to this Network Meeting.
In the Network Meeting held prior to this year, more than 100 people participated. While forums
in which first survey results were reported were held on an ad hoc basis, the Network Meeting
was required to be held at a fixed date around the end of the year.
The professionals and the community leaders arranged the contents of the Network
Meeting in order to get participants interested in the efforts toward the transportation issues. As
well as a session of reporting the survey results, they added a group work session, which involved
dividing participants by block, showing each block their survey results, and then having them
discuss efforts for the transportation issues in each block. The community leaders demanded thepresentation of the survey results that would facilitate discussion by block.
Community leader 5: I hope these survey results would bring some ideas, “what can be gleaned
from these?” Then, it would be good if we could find one that could best lead to the next step.
Professional 1: Maybe we should create a sheet that makes it easy to find that.
Community leader 5: For that matter, I think the intents of various parties are quite important, like
if we are willing to cooperate or if we don’t have any intention at all to do it.
Community leader 6: I think it depends on their attitude.
Community leader 5: Yes, but things are more complicated, I think. For example, they might bemotivated to cooperate, but it would be difficult to secure profitability so they would only do it if there ispublic support. I think it would be quite interesting if the survey results could serve as a trigger for
generating ideas of a next step.
(2/7/2017, at the project meeting)

The analysis by block attracted attention from the community leaders in the first survey as
well. It was meant for the community leaders to understand characteristics of their own work. The
analysis by block in the second survey was deemed necessary to get a wider range of community
members involved.
The Network Meeting was held a few months after the project meeting. Approximately 160
people participated, which was beyond the expectations of the professionals. After the report on
the survey, people were divided into groups by block, as planned, and discussed the results of theanalysis. While some blocks confirmed that they had no issues with regard to transportation, other24

blocks discussed a concrete action, for example, asking a volunteer driver to go shopping together
on a regular basis. Blocks with bus stops that were found to not to be used much were determined
to have a workshop on how to use buses. Thus, the survey results led people in each block to comeup with different actions on different transportation issues.
Additionally, discussions based on the survey results revealed a general trend of blockfeatures, such as the family composition, income, and block culture, which underlie thetransportation issues. Blocks with a higher percentage of the elderly using their relatives fortransportation indicated that the older population in these blocks tend to live with their families. A
higher rate of taxi use indicated a higher income. In a discussion of one block, it was found thatpeople did not use buses due to their own pride.
The survey results were also expected to reinforce the accountability of people outside thecommunity. In a meeting with the professionals, the community leaders voiced the following
expectation:
Community leader 5: After all, we cooperated in the questionnaire survey keeping the next step inmind. Then, we hope we are naturally inspired by something based on the survey results.
Community leader 3: For some people, shopping is difficult. They cannot go shopping even if they
are willing to. I think one way to deal with this difficulty is to talk to people in nearby convenience stores,
department stores, and supermarkets, and ask them whether delivery services can be implemented. As[Community leader 5] just said about the inspiration, it seems to me that one way is to extend ourrelationship with them. (2/7/2017, at the project meeting)

The professionals brought the survey results to public agencies and private companies in aneffort to extend the scope of accountability with respect to the transportation issues. For example,
during campaigns run by the police agency on surrendering driver’s licenses, the police agency
and the city government approached the professionals for reference against the survey results inorder to understand the effects of surrendering a license on the lives of the elderly. Similarly, asupermarket in the Minami district was keen to know the survey results regarding the means oftransportation for shopping to discuss whether they should provide a courtesy bus service. The
police agency and the supermarket participated at the Network Meeting.

25

First survey

Second survey

Accountability: Understanding that the transportation issue for the elderly should
be taken on as a community.
Community
accountability:
Downward
To whom?

accountability:

Professionals andcommunity leaders→A large

Professionals→

number of community

Community leaders.

members, other publicorganizations, and privateorganizations.
Survey results were

Survey results wereHow?

discussed with a few

discussed through group
works among a large number

community leaders at the ad of community members at
hoc meetings and forums.

the ad hoc meetings and theannual Network Meeting.

Community capacity: Being able to take on the transportation issue for theelderly as a community.
A specific sense of
A general sense ofcommunity toward
Sense of community

community improvements.
Rough analysis of overall
community situations.

community of thetransportation issue for theelderly. The survey results
were analyzed from multiple
perspectives (e.g., by eachblock, by age, and the specificpurposes of transportation).

The survey was

Level of commitment

The survey was

designed solely bydesigned through cooperation

professionals in an

between professionals andexploratory way, and there

community leaders. The

was an extremely limited

survey was clearly stated inextent of community

formal activity plans.

leaders’ commitment.

26

The survey was
Ability to solve
problems

The survey was
designed solely byprofessionals.

designed through cooperation
between professionals andcommunity leaders. A
collective document (i.e., theProspectus) was developed.

Getting cooperation
Access to resourcesfrom a few community
leaders.

Getting cooperationfrom a large number ofcommunity members andcommunity supporters.

Table 1: Summary of case analysis.

5. Discussion and conclusion

Table 1 summarizes different characteristics of accountability and community capacity inthe first and second surveys. As the table illustrates, community capacity and downward
accountability were enhanced across the two survey periods studied. Our findings suggest theimportance of the participative process for downward accountability to the community, normally
discussed in prior research (Agostino & Arnaboldi 2018; O’Dwyer & Unerman 2008, 2010;
O’Leary 2017; Yang & Northcott 2019). Furthermore, we have demonstrated that the four
elements of community capacity are vital for the analysis on how to develop and use tools toenhance downward accountability. Prior accountability literature has not emphasized theimportance of building community capacity for extension of accountability (O’Dwyer &Unerman 2008, 2010; O’Leary 2017). We elaborate on the findings in the following sections.

5.1.

Limitations of downward accountability
Where welfare services are developed and provided through cooperation between

professional NPOs/NGOs and community organizations, community-based activities require
cooperation from more community members. This paper has provided empirical evidence of boththe importance and limitations of the participative process in downward accountability. Prior
research has considered the implementation of accountability initiatives to the recipients ofservices, namely, the beneficiaries and the community users of services as downward27

accountability (O’Dwyer & Unerman 2007). In our case study, accountability to community
leaders can be seen as downward accountability. Prior studies have argued that downward
accountability is enhanced through participative processes, such as grassroots activities, including
human rights advocacy, community-led HIV/AIDS initiatives (Awio et al. 2011; O’Dwyer &Unerman 2008, 2010; O’Leary 2017); micro-financing for low-income, poor, and excluded
individuals (Dixon et al. 2006; Marini et al. 2017); and natural disaster recovery efforts (Taylor etal. 2014). However, the problem of creating and implementing community consensus is often
difficult due to the breadth of the agenda, the ambiguity of roles, and the different expectations ofvarious actors (Chaskin 2001, p.316). During the two survey episodes, we see the challenges ofthe participative process, such as objections from some community supporters who did not clearly
understand the transportation issues for the elderly. This shows the limitations of downward
accountability. This paper argues that enhancement of community capacity overcomes thelimitations of accountability. During the process of enhancing community capacity, the range ofaccountability is extended from only a few community leaders to a large number of community
members. This extension suggests the possibility of community accountability. In the following
section, we further discuss the development and use of different tools for accountability.

5.2.

Development and use of different tools for accountability
Although prior accountability literature has argued that the participative process enhances

accountability (O’Leary 2017), in reality, there are challenges during the process which hamper
implementation of accountability initiatives. This study draws on the concept of community
capacity (Chaskin 2001; Saegert 2006) to clarify how the development and use of different tools
enhance accountability. O’Leary (2017) discussed the case of international NGOs that help
community volunteers in developing countries to collect data on health and education, to identify
problems, and to plan activities for solving the problems on their own. In her case study, O’Leary
showed how different tools including surveys and social mappings were developed and used foraccountability. In the case of Minami, we also see how different tools including two surveys forthe elderly, activity plans for the surveys, and a collective statement (i.e., the Prospectus) wereused to enhance accountability to community leaders and members. This supports the arguments
of prior research. Furthermore, this paper analyzes how the development and use of individual
tools enhanced accountability, drawing on a framework of the four elements of community
capacity (i.e., the sense of community, level of commitment, ability to solve problems, and accessto resources) (Chaskin 2001).
28

First, the presentation of the survey results broken down by each block, by age, and thespecific purposes of transportation had been developed through interactions among professionals
and community leaders. This survey analysis from multiple perspectives increased community
leaders’ interest in, and the understanding of, the transportation issues for the elderly, focusing
their sense of community on the transportation issues. Second, the first survey was designed solely
by professionals in an exploratory way, and there was a limited extent of community leaders’commitment. In the episode of clear statement of the second survey in formal activity plans, we
see that specified sense of community described above increased community leaders’commitment. Third, to enhance the ability to solve problems by turning the level of commitment
into an actual action, the questionnaire and the collective document (i.e., the Prospectus) of thesecond survey were developed through cooperation between professionals and community
leaders. These tools were used to overcome the challenges arising from extending the scope ofcommunity involvement, which encouraged community-based activities for implementing thesecond survey. Finally, by using survey analyses from multiple perspectives, formal action plans,
and the collective document (i.e., the Prospectus), access to resources of cooperation was extended
from a few community leaders to a large number of community supporters and members. Thisfinding shows that the development and use of different tools enhanced the four elements ofcommunity capacity, which enabled the effective implementation of accountability.

5.3.

Community accountability
Prior NPO/NGO accountability literature has argued the importance of analyzing “to whom”

and “how” accountability is implemented (Ebrahim 2016). Furthermore, this study clarifies theextension of accountability from the “to whom” and “how” perspectives. In our case study,
professionals designed the first survey to implement downward accountability to community
leaders. The survey results were discussed with a few community leaders at the ad hoc meetings
and forums. In contrast, through cooperation between professionals and community leaders, thesecond survey was designed to implement community accountability to a large number ofcommunity members, other public organizations (e.g., the police agency), and privateorganizations (e.g., a supermarket). In the second survey episode, we see that a large number ofcommunity members, and other public organizations and private organizations, as well as
professionals and community leaders were involved in the process of using the survey. In relation
to the “to whom” and “how” perspectives (Ebrahim 2016), this finding suggests the possibility ofcommunity accountability beyond the range of downward accountability discussed in priorresearch (O’Dwyer & Unerman 2008, 2010; O’Leary 2017).
29

5.4.

Accountability process through community involvement in an urban area
In an urban area, community initiatives, creating and implementing community

involvement is challenging due to the extent of the agenda, ambiguity of roles, and expectationsof various actors (Chaskin 2001, p.316). However, most studies pay more attention to the case ofinternational NGOs that support community issues (e.g., health and education) in developing
countries (O’Dwyer & Unerman 2008, 2010; O’Leary 2017), so there is a lack of knowledge on
mechanisms of accountability for community-based activities in an urban area (Hall & O'Dwyer
2017). To fill this research gap, we have demonstrated that the four elements of community
capacity are vital for the analysis on how to develop and use tools to enhance accountability in an
urban area. As our study has been based upon a single community, it is necessary to exercise
caution in generalizing our observations. Nevertheless, we suggest that how accountability isimplemented by enhancing community capacity will be of value for future studies.

References
Agostino, D., and M. Arnaboldi. (2018). Performance measurement systems in public service
networks. The what, who, and how of control. Financial Accountability and Management34, 103-116.
Agyemang, G., B. O’Dwyer, and J. Unerman. (2019). NGO accountability: Retrospective andprospective academic contributions. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 32(8),2353-2366.
Awio, G., D. Northcott, and S. Lawrence. (2011). Social capital and accountability in grass-roots
NGOs: The case of the Ugandan community-led HIV/AIDS initiative. Accounting, Auditing
and Accountability Journal 24(1), 63-92.
Bovaird, T. (2007). Beyond engagement and participation: User and community coproduction of
public services. Public Administration Review 67(5), 846-860.
Carlsson-Wall, M., K. Kraus, and J. Lind. (2011). The interdependencies of intra- and interorganisational controls and work practices–The case of domestic care of the elderly.
Management Accounting Research 22(4), 313-329.
Chaskin, R. J. (2001). Building community capacity: A definitional framework and case studies
from a comprehensive community initiative. Urban Affairs Review 36(3), 291-323.
Chenhall, R. H., M. Hall, and D. Smith. (2010). Social capital and management control systems:
30

A study of a non-government organization. Accounting, Organizations and Society 35, 737756.
Dixon, R., J. Ritchie, and J. Siwale. (2006). Microfinance: Accountability from the grassroots.
Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 19(3), 415-427.
Ebrahim, A. (2003). Accountability in practice: Mechanisms for NGOs. World Development
31(5), 813-829.
Ebrahim, A. (2016). The many faces of nonprofit accountability. Renz, D. O. and R. D. Herman(eds.) The Jossey-Bass Handbook of Nonprofit Leadership and Management (fourth edition).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 102-123.
Hall, M, and B. O'Dwyer. (2017). Accounting, non-governmental organizations and civil society:
The importance of nonprofit organizations to understanding accounting, organizations andsociety. Accounting, Organizations and Society 63, 1-5.
Marini, L., J. Andrew, and S. van der Laan. (2017). Tools of accountability: Protecting
microfinance clients in South Africa? Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 30(6),1344-1369.
Nyamori, R. O., S. R. Lawrence, and H. Perera. (2012). Revitalising local democracy: A social
capital analysis in the context of a New Zealand local authority. Critical Perspective on
Accounting 23, 572-594.
O’Dwyer, B., and J. Unerman. (2007). From functional to social accountability: Transforming theaccountability relationship between funders and non-governmental development
organizations. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 20(3), 446-471.
O’Dwyer, B., and J. Unerman. (2008). The paradox of greater NGO accountability: A case studyof Amnesty Ireland. Accounting, Organizations and Society 33(7/8), 801-824.
O'Dwyer, B., and J. Unerman. (2010). Enhancing the role of accountability in promoting the rights
of beneficiaries of development NGOs. Accounting and Business Research 40(5), 451-471.
O’Leary, S. (2017). Grassroots accountability promises in rights-based approaches todevelopment: The role of transformative monitoring and evaluation in NGOs. Accounting,
Organizations and Society 63, 21-41.
Pestoff, V. (2014). Collective action and the sustainability of co-production. Public Management
Review 16(3), 383-401.
Saegert, S. (2006). Building civic capacity in urban neighborhoods: An empirically groundedanatomy. Journal of Urban Affairs 28(3), 275-294.
Taylor, D., M. Tharapos, and S. Sidaway. (2014). Downward accountability for a natural disaster31

recovery effort: Evidence and issues from Australia’s Black Saturday. Critical Perspectives
on Accounting 25(7), 633-651.
Yang, C., and D. Northcott. (2019). Together we measure: Improving public service outcomes via
the co-production of performance measurement. Public Money and Management 39(4),253-261.

Appendix: Information on the case and field study

Table A1: Regular stakeholders of the project.
Name of organizations

Name of key players

The Minami Elderly Support TKR（the head of the ESO, chief care manager）
Office (ESO)The City Council of Social
Welfare (CSW)
Community Welfare Department

AOY（community social worker）
STM （ LSC ・ on administrative leave →reinstatement）

Principal Elderly Support Office

TDA（LSC）
YKG（first layer LSC）
TAK（certified social worker）

Yamagata city government

AB （ long-life support department, elderly32support section, section head）
Researchers

University professors and students.

Table A2: Occasional stakeholders.
The Minami Elderly Support OfficeSAI
NGC（executive director of K social welfare
corporation・CEO of the nursing home）

The City Council of Social Welfare
COO

NGO

Community welfare department

SZK（general manager of the department）
EBE （ department of social welfare town

Principal Elderly Support Officedevelopment, section 2, section head）
NGO

Yamagata city government

OB （ long-life support department, elderly
support section）
GTO（

planning

andcoordination

department, transport section, section head）

33

District Council of Social Welfare in KNZ（chairman）
Minami

HND（vice-chairman）
NGS（vice-chairman）
SAI（secretary general）

District

Councilof

Volunteers

and

Child

Welfare YUK（chairman）
Welfare KGM（vice-chairman）

Volunteers in Minami
Transport Network (private non- SAI
profit organization)

HND

Table A3: Meetings that researchers attended.
yyyy/mm/dd Place

ParticipantsContents

2016/06/08

Yamagata

TKR，SAI

Discussion about the first

University

STM

surveyOne researcher
2016/08/04

Yamagata

TKR

How to analyze the survey

University

STM，YKG，TAK

result

AB，OB

The future progress of the34

2016/10/26

Researchers

project

Yamagata

TKR

The analysis results of the

University

STM，YKG，TAK

surveyAB
Researchers
2016/11/16

Yamagata

TKR，STM

Preparing for the second

city General AB，OB

forum (2016/11/26)

WelfareSAI（Transport

CenterNetwork）
YUK，KGM（District
Councilof

WelfareVolunteers and Child
Welfare Volunteers in
Minami）
One researcher
2016/12/20

Yamagata

TKR

Review meeting of the35

University

2017/01/27

The

STM，YKG，TDA， second
TAK，AOY(2016/11/26)

AB

Future progress of the

Researchers

project

Miami TKR

ESO

forum

Preparing for the network

YKG，TAK，AOY， meeting (2017/02/16)
TDA
AB
KNZ ， KGM ， andothersResearchers

2017/04/12

Yamagata

TKR

Design of the second survey

University

TDA，YKG，

questionnaire

SAI（

Network）
Researchers

36

Transport

2017/10/24

Yamagata

TKR

The survey results

University

TDA，YKGOB
One researcher

2017/11/27

Community
Center

TKR

Preparing for the networkin TDA

Minamimeeting (2018/03/08)

KNZ，HND，NGS，
YUK
Researchers

2018/02/07

Community
CenterMinami

TKR, other two welfare Preparing for the networkin school

students meeting (2018/03/08)（trainees）
TDA
GTO
NGS，KGM，HND，YUK，KNZ, Two otherresearchers

37

2018/03/20

Community

TKR

Support plans for the block

Centerin TDA，YKG

MinamiGTO

associations

after

the

network meeting

One researcher
2018/07/13

Yamagata

TDA，YKG

Preparing for the fourth

University

One researcher

meeting forconsideringtransport problems

Table A4: Events that researchers attended.
yyyy/mm/dd Place

Participants

2016/05/13

Community Center in Minami

The first forum

2016/09/01

Community Center in Minami

The

network

meeting
2016/011/26 Community Center in Minami

about

20 The second forum

people2017/02/16

2017/09/07

Yamagata Industrial Innovation about
Support Center.

peopleCommunity Center in Minami

about

38

90 Thenetwork

meeting
80 Thenetwork

people2017/10/16

meeting

Yamagata city General WelfareTheseminarCenterencouraging
transport

andgoing-outbyvarious life support
services
2017/12/15

The City Council of Social

The

second

Welfaremeeting

forconsideringtransport problems
2018/02/23

The City Council of Social

The third meeting

Welfarefor

consideringtransport problems
2018/03/08

Community Center in Minami

aboutpeople2018/07/27

The City Council of Social

39

140 Thenetwork

meetingThefourthWelfaremeeting

forconsideringtransport problems

Table A5: Interviews.
yyyy/mm/dd Place
2016/08/23

Minutes Interviewee(s) Interviewer(s)The City Council of 29

STM

Researchers

TAK

Researchers

YKG

Researchers

Social Welfare
2016/08/23

The City Council of 31
Social Welfare

2016/08/23

The City Council of 46
Social Welfare

2016/08/24

The Miami ESO

39

TKR

Researchers

2016/08/25

Yamagata city office39

OB

One researcher

2016/08/25

Yamagata city office48

AB

One researcher

2017/04/10

Transport Network

144

SAI

Researchers

HND
2017/04/21

The Miami ESO

67

40

TKR

Researchers

2017/04/21

Yamagata city office2017/04/27

2017/04/28

64

AB

Researchers

Community Center in 60

KNZ

One researcher

MinamiSAI

TKR，TDAThe City Council of 49

YKG

Researchers

TDA

Researchers

AOY

Researchers

NGO

Researchers

welfare 70

NGC

Researchers

The City Council of 67

SZK

Researchers

EBE

Researchers

Social Welfare
2017/04/28

The City Council of 35
Social Welfare

2017/04/28

The City Council of 39
Social Welfare

2017/12/01

The City Council of 91
Social Welfare

2017/12/01

Ksocialcorporation
2018/03/12

Social Welfare
2018/03/12

The City Council of 68
Social Welfare

41

2018/03/12

The City Council of 34

TDA

Researchers

Social Welfare
2018/08/13

The Miami ESO

73

TKR

Researchers

2018/08/27

The City Council of 89

TDA

Researchers

KNZ

One researcher

Social Welfare
2018/09/06

Community Center in 19
Minami42