ACCOUNTABILITY FOR REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT IN NEW ZEALAND

ACCOUNTABILITY FOR REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT IN NEW ZEALAND by THUY THI THU TRAN A thesis submitted to the Victoria University of Wellington in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor in Philosophy Victoria University of Wellington 2021 i ABSTRACT Public governance in many countries has been moving toward a model called New Public Governance (NPG) to deal with the increasing complexity in the provision of public services NPG adopts a new perspective that emphasises the importance of managing the interaction between and among organisations within and outside the government to achieve efficiency and effectiveness of public policy and service delivery The interdependent relationships of these cross-working organisations are reflected in their accountability processes Thus, a robust accountability system is central to managing public governance However, accountability is complicated, and its definition is regularly debated Accountability is even more intricate in network relationships where it is challenging to identify who has contributed in what way However, research on accountability in networks is limited To contribute to the understanding of the problems of accountability in public governance, this study examines the nature of accountability and evaluates the discharge of accountability in the provision of public services in practice, using a case study of refugee resettlement in New Zealand The following research question is addressed, “What is the nature of the accountability relationships between different parties involved in, or affected by, the provision of social services to former refugees in New Zealand?” In answering this question, the study developed a research framework that was built on insights from prior literature and stakeholder theories and employed a case study approach that analysed 32 semi-structured interviews and a range of documents related to refugee resettlement in New Zealand The study finds that the current accountability system has not reflected the broader conception of multiple and interrelated accountability relationships identified in the literature on NPG Upward accountability to powerful stakeholders is mostly prioritised, downward accountability to beneficiaries has not significantly improved, and horizontal accountability to cross-working partners is limited The tensions between a bureaucratic need for control and a more devolved governance model that allows for the recognition of multiple contributions to both policy formation and implementation are still strong Moving from the New Public Management (NPM) perspective involving control over public money, still codified in the Public Finance Act 1989, to something closer to NPG is evidently not easy ii The key academic contribution of this study is in adding an important piece to the nearly “empty land” of horizontal accountability research, providing an understanding of how accountability mechanisms are used in practice, and raising the voices of less powerful stakeholders about the discharge of accountability by social service providers Regarding its practical contributions, the study provides a typical case study for research on accountability of non-government organisations (NGOs) in an NPG context, which can be valuable for policymakers wishing to develop policies that lead to an improvement in the appropriate expectations in NPG and accountability relationships between different parties in the delivery of social services It also provides recommendations for the government, NGOs, and refugee communities for achieving greater accountability iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Finally, it comes to the stage that I can express my gratitude to the special people who strongly supported me to complete this thesis Looking back on the long journey I have been going through, this moment is so meaningful and touching to me First and foremost, I would like to express my deepest thanks to my amazing supervisors, Professor Rachel Baskerville, Dr Rodney Dormer, and Associate Professor Carolyn Fowler for their devoted academic guidance and support throughout the process of my PhD study Each of you has brought different strengths to this thesis My knowledge and research skills has significantly developed from your insightful feedback, thank you I am highly appreciative of the people who were willing to participate in my research Without their generosity in giving their time and sharing information, this thesis would not have progressed to its conclusion My thanks next go to the Vietnamese Government and Victoria University of Wellington for all the financial support throughout my PhD journey in the forms of the VUW–VIED Scholarship (Project 911) and the Submission Scholarship Without this support, the journey would not have been possible I also would like to thank the Banking University of Ho Chi Minh City, where I work in Vietnam, for their documental support during the time I have been overseas My gratitude goes to my family, my close friends, and PhD friends in Wellington and Vietnam Spending precious time with them makes my PhD life more balanced and colourful Also, I would like to take this chance to especially thank my big brother He is always there when I need him His care and invaluable support throughout my study encouraged me to move forward and achieve my dreams Thanks, brother I hope you feel proud of me My biggest thanks go to my husband and my daughter for being with me always through the ups and downs with their unconditional love Words are not enough to express my heartfelt gratitude to you for all the support you have given me on this journey Thank you, hubby Cà Rốt, you are my sunshine, my photographer, and my best buddy We have been spending a wonderful and unforgettable time together on this long adventure Without you, I would never have reached this stage Thank you, darling I love you so much iv v Table of Contents ABSTRACT II ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS IV LIST OF TABLES XII LIST OF FIGURES XIV LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS XVI CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Vignette – Why I chose to study accountability in the New Zealand context 1.2 Background of the research 1.2.1 Public governance and accountability in public governance 1.2.2 Refugee resettlement in New Zealand 1.3 Motivations 1.4 Research aims and research questions 1.5 Research framework 1.5.1 Relevant theories 1.5.2 Key accountability frameworks and models 1.5.3 Analytical framework 11 1.6 Research methodology 13 1.7 Structure of the thesis 13 CHAPTER 2: PUBLIC GOVERNANCE 15 2.1 Introduction 15 2.2 Historic shift in public governance from government-managed to subcontracting to non-government organisations .15 2.2.1 Traditional Public Administration .15 2.2.2 New Public Management 16 2.2.3 Moving towards New Public Governance 21 2.3 Contracting-out .24 2.4 Non-government organisations 26 2.5 Guidance on contracting relationship between government agencies and nongovernment organisations 29 2.6 Networks and network governance .33 2.6.1 Networks 33 2.6.2 Network governance 35 2.7 Summary 38 vi CHAPTER 3: ACCOUNTABILITY IN PUBLIC GOVERNANCE 39 3.1 Introduction 39 3.2 Definition of accountability 40 3.3 Accountability vs Responsibility 45 3.4 Accountability vs Trust 47 3.5 To whom is accountability owed? 50 3.5.1 Upward accountability 50 3.5.2 Inward and downward accountability 51 3.5.3 Diagonal accountability .53 3.5.4 Horizontal accountability 54 3.6 For what is accountability demanded? 56 3.6.1 Accountability for outputs 58 3.6.2 Accountability for outcomes .59 3.6.3 Accountability for wellbeing .59 3.7 How is accountability discharged? 62 3.7.1 Disclosure statements and reports 64 3.7.2 Performance assessment and evaluation 66 3.7.3 Participation 67 3.7.4 Self-regulation 69 3.7.5 Social auditing 69 3.8 Emerging accountability challenges .71 3.8.1 The dominance of upward accountability 72 3.8.2 The problems of “many eyes” and “many hands” 72 3.8.3 The complexity of accountability in practice compared to theory 73 3.8.4 The lack of a framework and guidance on accountability in public governance 73 3.9 Gaps for this research .74 3.10 Summary .76 CHAPTER 4: REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT 79 4.1 Introduction 79 4.2 Refugees globally – key information 79 4.2.1 Definition 79 4.2.2 Sub-categories of refugees .80 4.2.3 The rationale for refugee resettlement policies .81 4.2.4 Principles for establishing roles and responsibilities related to refugee resettlement .81 4.2.5 Models for the reception of resettled refugees .81 4.3 Refugee resettlement in New Zealand 82 4.3.1 Who can come to New Zealand as a refugee? 82 4.3.2 The scope of this study in terms of refugee classification 89 vii 4.3.3 The New Zealand Refugee Resettlement Strategy programme .90 4.4 Summary .104 CHAPTER 5: RESEARCH FRAMEWORK 105 5.1 Introduction 105 5.2 Applicable theories and justification 105 5.2.1 Stakeholder theory – a citizenship perspective 106 5.2.2 Stakeholder salience .108 5.2.3 Salient stakeholder cultures 111 5.3 Key accountability frameworks and models in the prior literature and the justification for using them .115 5.3.1 Dubnick and Justice’s (2004) framework for analysing accountability 115 5.3.2 Provan and Kenis's (2008) network governance 116 5.3.3 Ebrahim's (2003a) accountability mechanisms 117 5.3.4 Klijn and Koppenjan's (2014) horizontal accountability mechanisms 118 5.4 Analytical framework 121 5.5 Summary .129 CHAPTER 6: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .131 6.1 Introduction 131 6.2 Philosophical assumptions 131 6.3 Qualitative research .133 6.4 A case study approach 135 6.5 Reflection methods 137 6.6 Triangulation methods 140 6.7 Data collection 143 6.7.1 Documents 143 6.7.2 Semi-structured interview 147 6.8 Data analysis 151 6.9 Ethical considerations 156 6.10 Summary .157 CHAPTER 7: SERVICE PROVISION TO FORMER REFUGEES .159 7.1 Introduction 159 7.2 The parties involved in the provision of social services to former refugees 159 7.2.1 Government agencies .160 7.2.2 Non-government organisations 167 7.2.3 Volunteers .173 7.3 The networks and network governance models governing the parties involved in social service delivery to former refugees 175 7.3.1 The networks involved in social service delivery to former refugees 175 viii 7.3.2 The lead organisation governance model .178 7.4 Discussion .181 7.5 Summary .184 CHAPTER 8: PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTABILITY 185 8.1 Introduction 185 8.2 Accountability – perspectives of the interview participants 185 8.2.1 Accountability from the viewpoints of government agencies 186 8.2.2 Accountability from the viewpoints of non-government organisations 187 8.3 Discussion .189 8.4 Summary .193 CHAPTER 9: STAKEHOLDER PRIORITISATION OF REFUGEE SERVICE PROVIDERS AND VOICES OF LESS POWERFUL STAKEHOLDERS .195 9.1 Introduction 195 9.2 To whom are refugee service providers accountable? 195 9.2.1 Who, theoretically, are stakeholders of refugee service providers? 195 9.2.2 Which stakeholders refugee service providers think they are accountable to? 197 9.2.3 Which stakeholders are not mentioned by the refugee service providers? 201 9.2.4 Discussion: to whom they are accountable 204 9.2.5 Who are the refugee service providers’ salient stakeholders? 209 9.2.6 Discussion: salient stakeholders .221 9.3 How are less powerful stakeholders (the beneficiaries) given voices? .223 9.3.1 In what ways can former refugees receive relevant information and raise their voices? .223 9.3.2 Constraints on former refugees raising their voices .230 9.3.3 Discussion: the voices of former refugees 239 9.4 Summary .241 CHAPTER 10: REFUGEE SERVICE PROVIDER ACCOUNTABILITY MECHANISMS 243 10.1 Introduction 243 10.2 Empirical analysis of the accountability mechanisms used by government agencies and non-government organisations 243 10.2.1 Reports and disclosure statements .243 10.2.2 Performance evaluation 258 10.2.3 Participation 263 10.2.4 Self-regulation .270 10.2.5 Social auditing .270 10.2.6 Summary of the findings on the use of accountability mechanism by government agencies and non-government organisations 271 ix Treasury, NZ (2011) Working towards higher living standards for New Zealanders https://www.treasury.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2011-05/tp-hls-may11.pdf Treasury, NZ (2019) The living standards framework: Dashboard Update https://www.treasury.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2019-12/lsf-dashboard-updatedec19.pdf Tuckett, A.G (2005) Applying thematic analysis theory to practice: A researcher’s experience Contemporary Nurse, 19(1-2), 75-87 Uddin, M M., & Belal, A R (2019) Donors’ influence strategies and beneficiary accountability: An NGO case study Accounting Forum, 43(1), 113-134 Uhr, J (1993) Redesigning accountability: From muddles to maps The Australian Quarterly, 65(2), 1-16 https://doi.org/10.2307/20635716 Unerman, J and O'Dwyer, B (2010) NGO accountability and sustainability issues in the changing global environment Public Management Review, 12(4), 475-486 UNHCR (2011) UNHCR Resettlement Handbook https://www.unhcr.org/46f7c0ee2.pdf UNHCR (2018) Where refugees come from? https://www.unhcr.org/statistics/unhcrstats/59ca6ad77/where-do-refugees-comefrom.html United Nations (1951) Convention relating to the Status https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocitycrimes/Doc.23_convention%20refugees.pdf of Refugees Valentinov, V (2011) Accountability and the public interest in the non-profit sector: A conceptual framework Financial Accountability & Management, 27(1), 32-42 Van Bueren, E M., Klijn, E.-H., & Koppenjan, J F (2003) Dealing with wicked problems in networks: Analysing an environmental debate from a network perspective Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 13(2), 193-212 Van Staden, C., & Heslop, J (2009) Implications of applying a private sector based reporting model to not-for-profit entities: The treatment of charitable distributions by charities in New Zealand Australian Accounting Review, 19(1), 42-53 Vangen, S., Hayes, J P., & Cornforth, C (2015) Governing cross-sector, inter-organisational collaborations Public Management Review, 17(9), 1237-1260 Vivian, J (1994) NGOs and sustainable development in Zimbabwe: No magic bullets Development and Change, 25(1), 167-193 Walden, G I (2006) Who’s watching us now? The non-profit sector and the new government by surveillance Non-profit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35(4), 715-720 Wallis, J., & Dollery, B (1999) Market failure, government failure, leadership and public policy Springer Walsham, G (1995) The emergence of interpretivism in IS research Information Systems Research, 6(4), 376-394 324 Wellens, L., & Jegers, M (2011) Beneficiaries’ participation in non-profit organisations: A theory-based approach Public Money & Management, 31(3), 175-182 Wellens, L., & Jegers, M (2014) Beneficiary participation as an instrument of downward accountability: A multiple case study European Management Journal, 32(6), 938-949 Werker, E., & Ahmed, F Z (2008) What non-governmental organisations do? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 22(2), 73-92 White, S C (1996) Depoliticising development: The uses and abuses of participation Development in Practice, 6(1), 6-15 Williams, A P., & Taylor, J A (2013) Resolving accountability ambiguity in non-profit organisations Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Non-profit Organisations, 24(3), 559-580 Williamson, O (1985) The Economic Institutions of Capitalism: Firms, Markets and Relational Contracting Free Press Wood, D.J., Mitchell, R.K., Agle, B.R & Bryan, L.M (2018) Stakeholder identification and salience after 20 years: progress, problems and prospects Business and Society, 60(1), 196-245 Yin, R K (2003) Case Study Research: Design and Methods (3rd ed.) SAGE Publications 325 326 APPENDICES Appendix A: Traditional Public Administration, New Public Management, New Public Governance: Comparing perspectives Note Extracted from Denhart and Denhart (2015, p 26) 327 Appendix B: Key points of the four government guidance documents Tittle of document The guidelines for contracting with NGOs for services sought by the Crown (Treasury, 2009) Purpose of Main content document Provides basic i) Forms of contracting or funding arrangement instructions for all Either full or partial funding of the agreed services 
 departments and Entitlements attached to the user of a service.
 Crown entities when Funding on the basis of outcomes achieved.
 entering into Grants (funding provided so long as certain conditions are met) contracting Full or partial devolution of decisions on the allocation and use of funds to a community agreements with organisation NGOs for the delivery of public ii) Principles of Good Contract Management services Services purchased through contracts and other types of funding relationships should contribute to the achievement of Government outcomes and objectives Contracting should reflect the needs of the ultimate users or recipients of the service 
 Contracts should provide appropriate accountability for public money Contracts should represent value for the public money 
 The quality of service delivery will usually be of central importance 
 The Crown and its organisations should act in good faith Government agencies should understand the nature of the organisations they and the Crown contract with iii) The lifecycle of a contracting arrangement Planning for the funding arrangement.
 Selecting a provider.
 Negotiating the terms of the arrangement.
 Managing and monitoring the arrangement.
 328 Reviewing and evaluating the arrangement Starting over Principles to underpin management by public entities of funding to nongovernment organisations (Office of the AuditorGeneral, 2006) Sets out principles that public entities should apply when funding NGOs i) Typical funding arrangement with NGOs Unconditional grants Conditional grants Relational contracting Classical contracting ii) Principles of managing funding arrangements with NGOs Lawfulness: Public entities must act within the law and meet their legal obligations Accountability: Public entities should be accountable for their performance and be able to give full and accurate accounts of their activities and have in place governance and management arrangements suitable to address any concerns Openness: Public entities should act in a way that is – and is seen to be – transparent Value for money: Public entities should use resources effectively, economically, and without waste in achieving their policies and end-user benefits Fairness: Public entities have a fundamental public law obligation to always act fairly and reasonably Integrity: Anyone who is managing public resources should so with the utmost integrity 329 Public sector purchases, grants, and gifts: Managing funding arrangements with external parties (Office of the AuditorGeneral, 2008) Code of Funding Practice (Office for the Community and Voluntary Sector, 2010) Assists public entities make informed decisions and manage risks when funding an external party This guidance provides more detail about types of funding arrangement and their common figures, as well as providing common examples It mentions the aspects affecting decisions on the most appropriate form of a funding arrangement, and the high-level expectations in terms of planning, selection, management, and review that accompany each type of funding arrangement Embodies a common Seven Core Codes of Funding understanding of, Respect: The relationship between the funding agencies and non-profit organisations will and mutual be based on respect and will acknowledge the accountability, complementary roles, and commitment to, responsibilities of each of the parties specified principles Cultural context: Gaining agreement from non-profit organisations may require funders to and minimum allow for different culturally-anchored processes as part of the negotiation and agreement standards that may process be used by both Transparency: Where there are potentially multiple applicants or providers of a service or government multiple participants, the selection processes used will be fair and transparent agencies and NGOs Open communication: Preliminary discussions are arranged between parties to strengthen their relationship and to develop a shared understanding by all parties Flexibility and innovation: The potential for non-profit organisations to be innovative will be recognised and encouraged Integrity: All parties to the funding agreement have processes in place to ensure proper management of government funding Accountability: The funding agreement will clearly identify the outcomes and expectations for the activities covered by the agreement 330 Appendix C: Red Cross Fundamental Principles Red Cross Fundamental Principles In 1965, the seven Fundamental Principles were adopted by the 20th International Conference They were developed to link together the International Committee, Federation, and National Societies All Red Cross activities programmes and activities are guided by the Fundamental Principles of Humanity, Impartiality, Neutrality, Independence, Voluntary Service, Unity, and Universality These principles allow Red Cross to provide help immediately to whoever needs it, wherever they are, whatever their race, political beliefs, religion, social status, or culture Humanity The International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, born of a desire to bring assistance without discrimination to the wounded on the battlefield, endeavours, in its international and national capacity, to prevent and alleviate human suffering wherever it may be found Its purpose is to protect life and health and to ensure respect for the human being It promotes mutual understanding, friendship, cooperation and lasting peace amongst all peoples Impartiality It makes no discrimination as to nationality, race, religious beliefs, class or political opinions It endeavours to relieve the suffering of individuals, being guided solely by their needs, and to give priority to the most urgent cases of distress Neutrality In order to continue to enjoy the confidence of all, the Movement may not take sides in hostilities or engage at any time in controversies of a political, racial, religious or ideological nature Independence The Movement is independent The National Societies, while auxiliaries in the humanitarian services of their governments and subject to the laws of their respective countries, must always maintain their autonomy so that they may be able at all times to act in accordance with the principles of the Movement Voluntary service It is a voluntary relief movement not prompted in any manner by desire for gain Unity There can be only one Red Cross or one Red Crescent Society in anyone country It must be open to all It must carry on its humanitarian work throughout its territory Universality The International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, in which all Societies have equal status and share equal responsibilities and duties in helping each other, is worldwide Note From https://www.icrc.org/en/document/fundamental-principles-red-cross-and-redcrescent 331 Appendix D: Success Indicators and Measures – 2017/2018 Outcomes update for 2017/18 Outcome 1: Self-sufficiency Outcome 2: Housing Outcome 3: Education All working age refugees (18 – 64) are in paid work or supported by a family member in paid work Refugees live independently of government housing assistance in homes that safe, healthy and affordable Refugees achieve educational and vocational qualifications Success Indicator Success Indicator Success Indicator Success Indicator Increased proportion in paid employment Decreased proportion receiving unemploymentrelated benefits Source: IDI data – Stats NZ • • • Each annual cohort has steadily increased their rate of participation in the paid workforce, generally up to a level of between 40-50% by the five year mark The average workforce participation for the 20122017 period is slightly higher than for the 20062011 period The proportion in paid employment at one year is highest for the 2016/17 cohort Source: IAP Data Warehouse, Ministry of Social Development Note: Social housing tenancy includes HNZ and Community Housing Provider tenancies that receive an income related rent subsidy They exclude refugee family groups that may have NGO or local government social housing, and those in receipt of the Accommodation Supplement Source: IDI data – Stats NZ • The proportion of people in all cohorts receiving unemployment-related benefits, including the most recent cohort, decreases steadily over time • Cohorts arriving in NZ from 2012/13 have slightly higher rates of unemployment benefit receipt in the first three years post arrival than earlier cohorts Proportion of refugee school leavers attaining NCEA Level 2, after years or more in the New Zealand education system Proportion of refugees receiving housing assistance after two years and five years in New Zealand • Social housing utilisation has decreased for recent cohorts At June 2018 41% of refugees were in social housing on arrival compared with 58% of recently arrived refugees in June 2016 • By the end of the five year analysis measures, the cohorts have converged on a rate of between 56% and 61% Source: Schooling Analysis Unit, Ministry of Education • In 2017, 89% of school leavers with a refugee background (of any sort) attained NCEA Level or above after five years or more of being enrolled in ESOL This has increased from 73% in 2013 In 2017, 61% of school leavers with a refugee background (of any sort) attained NCEA Level or above after they had had less than five years of ESOL enrolment • Outcome 4: Health and Well-being Refugees and their families enjoy healthy, safe and independent lives Success Indicator Success Indicator Access to mental health services (at least one face-face visit) Proportion of quota refugee children receiving age appropriate vaccinations (within and 12 months of intake) Success Indicator Utilisation of GP services Note: This does not reflect the number of times an individual visited a GP within a quarter Of the 2016/17 cohort, only those that have been in NZ for at least six months by 30 June 2017 are included • • Source: Primary Health Organisation Enrolment, Ministry of Health The majority of refugees visit their GP within months of intake, but around one in ten not In 2017/18 14% had not visited their GP within months Source: National Immunisation Register, Ministry of Health Source: PRIMHD, Ministry of Health • 45% of the 2017/18 cohort have accessed mental health services since intake This is an improvement on the 2016/17 year, but slightly lower than the 2015/16 year • Of those in this cohort who did access mental health services, 96% did so within one month, and another 3% did so within two months of intake Within 12 months of arrival, only 3% had not visited a GP and this is consistent across the last three cohorts • • 98% of the under 17 year old members of the 2017/18 cohort received one or more scheduled vaccinations within six months of their intake This represents a 4% improvement on the 2016/17 cohort Only 1% of the 2017/18 cohort had no record of a scheduled vaccination This compares with 5% for the 2016/17 cohort, and 12% of the 2015/16 cohort at similar times post-arrival Note Reprinted from https://www.immigration.govt.nz/documents/refugees/nzrrs-dashboard.pdf Copyright 2019 by Immigration New Zealand 332 Appendix E: Indicator of success (MBIE – Red Cross Outcome Agreement) Note From the internal document provided by New Zealand Red Cross Reprinted with permission 333 Appendix F: Interview participant list INTERVIEW PARTICIPANT LIST Participant categories Position Organisation Government Senior Manager agencies (4) Senior Advisor Senior Advisor Principal NGOs (13) Senior Manager Former Senior Manager Manager Senior Manager Senior Manager Refugee Coordinator Manager Vicar Vestry Member Senior Manager Senior Manager General Practitioner Experienced Accountant MBIE Tertiary Education Commission MSD Primary school in Wellington New Zealand Red Cross New Zealand Red Cross New Zealand Red Cross English Language Tertiary Provider Trust for supporting refugees Church in Christchurch Church Social Services Church in Wellington Church in Nelson ChangeMakers Resettlement Forum Health service provider in Wellington Health service provider in Wellington For various not-for-profit entities Volunteers (3) Former refugees (10) Three volunteers Based in Wellington Eritrea (nationality) Asylum seeker (2017 – year of arrival to New Zealand as a refugee) Quota Refugee (2013) Quota Refugee (2012) Quota Refugee (2015) Quota Refugee (2012) Quota Refugee (2017) Reunification Refugee (2018) Reunification Refugee (2017) Quota Refugee (2015) Asylum seeker (2017 Iraq Myanmar Afghanistan Myanmar Myanmar Afghanistan Eritrea Yemen Eritrea Note: Government agency, NGO, volunteer, and former refugee participants are coded as GAx, NGOx, Vx, and Rx respectively In order to ensure confidentiality of the participants, the codes for each person are not show 334 Appendix G: Information sheet for participants 335 Appendix H: Sample semi-structured interview questions Accountability for Refugee Resettlement in New Zealand QUESTIONS WILL BE TAKEN FROM THESE AS APPROPRIATE (Semi-structure interview) Researcher: Thuy Thi Thu Tran - School of Accounting and Commercial Law, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand A For key people in Government Agencies: What are your job responsibilities? Can you tell me a little about your training or previous jobs which also relate to your current position? What refugee-related funding does your department receive? What are the services you provide? How you provide those services? What is the process of choosing a non-government organisation (NGO) to contract with for the delivery of services to refugee? How many service providers does your organisation contract with? How you track the results of what the NGO has done? What regulations govern the discharge of accountability? 10 What you think accountability is? 11 What mechanisms are/should be used by NGO to provide accountability for the resources you provide to them? B For key people in NGOs: How long have you been working in the NGO? What is your role in your NGO? Can you tell me a little about your training or previous jobs which also relate to your current position? What services you provide refugees? Do you collaborate with any other organisations to deliver refugee services? Who are the funders of your NGO? How your NGO get the funding? What are the criteria for applying to get the funding from government? Are there any requirements from the contract with government? Can I see the contract? 10 Are there ever conflicts between your NGO’s mission and the government funders’ requirements? Are there any difficulties in running the contracting services? 11 Whom you think your NGO are accountable to? 336 12 What you think accountability is? 13 How does your NGO discharge accountability? 14 What regulations impact on your NGO's ability to discharge accountability? 15 What mechanisms are/should be used by your NGO to discharge accountability? 16 Why you choose those mechanisms? 17 What you think are the most challenging to discharge accountability? 18 What are your suggestions to achieve a greater accountability? C For volunteers: How long have you been working as a volunteer? Can you tell me a little about your training or previous jobs which also relate to your current position? Why did you choose to support refugees? What services you provide to refugees? What you think are the most challenge when working with refugees? How you work with the NGO to deliver those services? Did they provide you any training? How you report to the NGO what you did for the refugees? What you think about that reporting process? What are the difficulties when you work with NGO? 10 To whom you think the NGO needs to be accountable? For what are they accountable? 11 What you think accountability is? 12 What is your expectation on the NGO for your voluntary contribution? Do you want to receive a report from the NGO on what volunteers did for refugees? What kind of reports you want to receive? 13 Do you think volunteers’ voices are heard by the NGO? 14 Do you have any suggestions to achieve a greater accountability? D For beneficiaries (refugees): Can you tell me a bit about yourself? Would you mind telling me about why and how you came here? What difficulties did you meet when you came to settle in New Zealand? What services have you received as a refugee in New Zealand? Do you know who provides those services? What you think about those services you have received? (Do you like those services? Are you satisfied with the services? What don’t you like about them?) Have you had any problems with the refugee services before? Yes → What was the problem? Did you talk to anyone from the service provider about that? Was the problem solved? No → If yes, would you talk to anyone from the service provider? Do you think the problem would be solved? What other services you want to get? Why? 337 Appendix I: Consent to interview _ 338 ... service delivery in practice The research was conducted through a case study of the delivery of refugee resettlement services in New Zealand 1.2.2 Refugee resettlement in New Zealand New Zealand has... refugee resettlement is important as it brings evidence on how accountability in this sector operates in practice In addition, studying this case study of refugee resettlement in New Zealand. .. study for the research on accountability of NGOs in an NPG context that is increasingly being applied in many countries New Zealand was considered quite a remarkable country in applying NPM reforms;