Financial disclosures by Ontario universities: 1988–1993

Improved Accountability Disclosures by Canadian Universities*

“…On les considère cependant comme la pierre angulaire de l'examen minutieux du public et des parlementaires (voir, par exemple, SSCFPA, 1989 ;Milazzo, 1992). Ils permettent, en outre, aux Administrations locales de s'acquitter de leur obligation redditionnelle à l'égard d'un groupe hétéroclite de parties prenantes (JCPA, 1989 ;PAEC, 1999 ;Banks et Nelson, 1994 ;Coy, Fischer et Gordon, 2001). De l'avis de Boyne et Law (1991, p. 179), le rapport annuel est « l'unique rapport de gestion complet auquel le public a accès ».…”

“…However, they are regarded as the cornerstone of public and Parliamentary scrutiny (see, e.g., SSCFPA, 1989;Milazzo, 1992). Furthermore, they enable local governments to discharge their accountability obligations to a diverse group of stakeholders (JCPA, 1989;PAEC, 1999;Banks and Nelson, 1994;Coy et al, 2001). As Boyne and Law (1991: 179) argue, the annual report is "the only comprehensive statement of stewardship available to the public".…”

Meeting user information needs: The impact of major changes in FASB and GASB standards on financial reporting by colleges and universities

“…However, those with taxing authority (community colleges) and a few others follow the modified accrual government-fund model with the dual perspective approach for reporting which presents both modified accrual funds statements and full accrual government-wide statements. Great Britain (Gray and Haslam, 1990), New Zealand (Dixon et al, 1991 andDixon et al, 1994;Coy et al, 1993 andCoy et al, 1994) and Ontario, Canada (Banks and Nelson, 1994). Unlike typical extent of disclosure studies of for-profit entities, these disclosure studies are longitudinal, designed primarily to assess changes over time for individual institutions rather than to identify explanations for differences in disclosure practices among entities.…”

Reporting Performance by New Zealand Secondary Schools: An Analysis of Disclosures

“…Nevertheless, their disclosure index has been externally validated in a number of settings (see, for example, Banks, Fisher and Nelson, 1997; Fisher and Banks, 1996; and Nelson et al, 1997) and adapted in other sectors (for example, Ryan et al, 2002). Banks and Nelson (1994, p. 288) argue that the Coy et al method of derivation gives ‘an a priori reliability to the scale in terms of its expected ability to measure the quality of disclosures’.…”