Charity SORP compliance – findings of a research study

Palmer, Paul; Isaacs, Martin; D'Silva, Kenneth Edgar

doi:10.1108/02686900110392904

Cited by 29 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Lists ranking charities in New Zealand do not exist. In England published lists that rank charities are available; for example, Charity Aids' Top 500 utilised in Hyndman and McKillop (1999) and Barings' Top 3000 Charities 1997 utilised in the Palmer et al study (2001). Newberry in her 1994 study used 29 New Zealand Charities, but did not indicate how they were selected.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implications of Applying a Private Sector Based Reporting Model to Not‐for‐Profit Entities: The Treatment of Charitable Distributions by Charities in New Zealand

Heslop¹

2009

Australian Accounting Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we investigate the practical and conceptual difficulties caused by applying a private sector based reporting model to the not‐for‐profit sector. We deal specifically with reporting on charitable distributions by charities in New Zealand. We find a majority of the entities report charitable distributions in the Statement of Financial Performance (as expenses). This approach is conceptually justifiable, complies with international best practice, and is in line with the accountability argument made in this paper. While the number reduced between 2003 and 2007, a significant minority of the entities report charitable distributions in the Statement of Movements in Equity (and therefore report higher surpluses). These two approaches lead to very different results, yet both are apparently seen as acceptable by the entities and their auditors. While this raises questions as to the understandability and comparability of the financial reporting by these entities, it also raises questions about the suitability of the for‐profit sector reporting requirements for the not‐for‐profit sector.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implications of Applying a Private Sector Based Reporting Model to Not‐for‐Profit Entities: The Treatment of Charitable Distributions by Charities in New Zealand

Heslop¹

2009

Australian Accounting Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…10 NZ has recently reversed its commitment to transaction-neutrality (Devonport and van Zijl, 2010), promoting the idea that a new accounting standards framework should consist of 'two sets of accounting standards: one applied by entities with a for-profit objective; and an alternative set applied by entities with a public benefit objective' (External Reporting Board, 2011). 11 This has been evident since the development of the first Charities SORP in 1988 (Palmer et al, 2001).…”

Section: Why Nfps Need Their Own Conceptual Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do Not‐For‐Profits Need Their Own Conceptual Framework?

Ryan¹,

Mack²,

Tooley³

et al. 2014

Financ Acc Manag

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper raises the issue of whether not‐for‐profit (NFP) oganisations require a conceptual framework that acknowledges their mission imperative and enables them to discharge their broader accountability. Relying on publicly available documentation and literature, it suggests the current Conceptual Frameworks for the for‐profit and public sectors are inadequate in meeting the accountability needs of NFPs. A NFP‐specific conceptual framework would allow the demonstration of broader NFP‐specific accountability and the formulation of NFP‐appropriate reporting practice, including the provision of financial and non‐financial reporting. The paper thus theoretically challenges existing financial reporting arrangements and invites debate on their future direction.

show abstract

“…Connolly & Hyndman 2000;Palmer et al 2001) and associated issues of accountability. In particular, Connolly and Hyndman (2004) argue that "the concept of accountability seems inextricably linked with the view that accounting should provide information to satisfy the needs of users."…”

Section: Accountability Of Charities Through Financial Reportingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mandatory Public Benefit Reporting as a Basis for Charity Accountability: Findings from England and Wales

Morgan

Fletcher

2013

Voluntas

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Charitable status is inherently linked in many jurisdictions with the requirement that an entity must be established for public benefit. But, until recently the public benefit principle had relatively little impact on the operations of most established charities. However, in England and Wales, reforms linked to the Charities Act 2006 led to a new requirement for public benefit reporting in the trustees' annual report (TAR) of every registered charity. This new narrative reporting requirement had the potential to affect the understanding of accountability by charities. The paper investigates the impact of that requirement through a study of over 1400 sets of charity reports and accounts and subsequent qualitative work with trustees and others involved in preparing TARs.

show abstract

Charity SORP compliance – findings of a research study

Cited by 29 publications

References 8 publications

Implications of Applying a Private Sector Based Reporting Model to Not‐for‐Profit Entities: The Treatment of Charitable Distributions by Charities in New Zealand

Implications of Applying a Private Sector Based Reporting Model to Not‐for‐Profit Entities: The Treatment of Charitable Distributions by Charities in New Zealand

Do Not‐For‐Profits Need Their Own Conceptual Framework?

Mandatory Public Benefit Reporting as a Basis for Charity Accountability: Findings from England and Wales

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About