Understanding Information Exchanges and Reporting by Grantmaking Foundations
DOI :
https://doi.org/10.22230/cjnser.2017v8n2a251Mots-clés :
Foundations, Information, Ecosystem / Fondations, ÉcosystèmeRésumé
Information and reporting issues are more present than ever in a context of accountability pressures on nonprofits and foundations. This conceptual article explores the information flows between the stakeholders in the philanthropic ecosystem and examines four broad types of reporting: tax and regulatory, financial, social, and grants reporting. Tax and regulatory reporting includes the general requirements imposed on charities and specific requirements imposed on Canadian foundations by the Income Tax Act. Financial reporting refers to financial statements and other financial information. Social reporting refers to information shared about foundations’ activities, non-financial performance, and impacts. Grant reporting refers to information requests and disclosure between foundations and grantees, and information about grants shared with other stakeholders. The article provides an analysis framework to examine the grantmaking foundations’ ecosystem and identify key trends and challenges regarding information exchanges.
Les enjeux liés à l’information et à la communication sont plus présents que jamais dans un contexte de responsabilisation en expansion. Diverses parties prenantes participent dans l’écosystème des fondations subventionnaires et sont engagés dans l’échange d’information. L’objectif de cet article conceptuel est d’explorer la circulation de l’information entre les parties prenantes de l’écosystème philanthropique et d’examiner quatre grands types de communication, soit celles fiscales et réglementaires, financières, sociales et subventionnaires. Les communications fiscales et réglementaires comprennent les exigences générales et spécifiques des organismes gouvernementaux, par exemple, la Déclaration de renseignements T3010 requis par la Loi de l’impôt sur le revenu du Canada. Les communications financières comprennent les états financiers et les autres informations financières. Les communications sociales portent sur l’information partagée à propos des activités des fondations, de leur performance non-financière et des impacts. Les communications subventionnaires comprennent les demandes et la divulgation d’information entre les fondations et les bénéficiaires et celle partagée avec les autres parties prenantes. Parmi les contributions de l’article, notons le développement d’un cadre d’analyse, basé sur la théorie des parties prenantes et sur la circulation de l’information, afin d’examiner l’écosystème philanthropique.
Téléchargements
Références
Ajah. (2015). Fundtracker Pro, online; <http://fundtracker.ajah.ca>.
Bearman, J. (2008). Drowning in Paperwork, Distracted from Purpose: Challenges and Opportunities in Grant Application and Reporting, Grant Managers Network, online: http://foundationcenter.org/gainknowledge/research/pdf/drowninginpaperwork.pdf.
Breen, O.B. (2013). The Disclosure Panacea: A Comparative Pespective on Charity Financial Reporting, Voluntas, 24(3), 852-880.
Brody, E. (2002). Accountability and public trust, In L. Salamon Ed.) The state of nonprofit America, Washington: Brookings Institute Press.
Brouard, F. (2014). T3010 Challenges for Research, Sprott Centre for Social Enterprises / Centre Sprott pour les entreprises sociales (SCSE/CSES), May, 51p.
Brouard, F. (forthcoming in 2017). Information et outils pour la recherche auprès des foundations subventionnaires in Fontan, J.-M., Elson P. and Lefèvre, S. (dir.) Les fondations philanthropiques: de nouveaux acteurs politiques?, Québec : PUQ.
Brouard, F., Glass, J. (2015). Emerging Information and Reporting Issues for Grantmaking Foundations – A preliminary discussion in a Canadian context, Discussion Paper, Laboratoire Montréalais de Recherche sur la Philanthropie Canadienne / Montreal Research Laboratory on Canadian Philanthropy (LMRPC/MRLCP) and Sprott Centre for Social Enterprises / Centre Sprott pour les entreprises sociales (SCSE/CSES), May, 48p.
Brouard, F., Larivet, S. (2010). Profession: Philanthrope, The Philanthropist / Le Philanthrope, 23(2), 166-175.
Carman, J. G. (2009). Nonprofits, funders, and evaluation: Accountability in action. The American Review of Public Administration, 39(4), 374-390.
Chamberland, V., Gazzoli, P., Dumais, L., Jetté, C., Vaillancourt, Y. (2012). Fondations et philanthropie au Canada et au Québec: influences, portraits et enjeux. Laboratoire de recherche sur les pratiques et les politiques sociales (LAREPPS), Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM), cahier du LAREPPS no 12-02, juillet, 88p.
Charity Commission. (2009). Charity Reporting and Accounting – Taking Stock and Future Reform, Charity Commission / Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator,
Coffman, J., Beer, T., Patrizi, P., Thompson, E. H. (2013). Benchmarking Evaluation in Foundations: Do We Know What We Are Doing?, The Foundation Review, 5(2), 36-51.
Community Foundations of Canada (2005). Grantmaking Tool Kit for Canadian Community Foundations, Community Foundations of Canada.
Connolly, C., Dhanani, A., Hyndman, N. (2013). The Accountability Mechanisms and Needs of External Charity Stakeholders, London: The Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA).
Connolly, C. Hyndman, N. (2003). Performance reporting by UK charities: Approaches, difficulties and current practice, Edinburgh: The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland.
Connolly, C. Hyndman, N. (2004). Performance reporting: a comparative study of British and Irish charities, The British Accounting Review, 36(2), 127-154.
Connolly, C., Hyndman, N. (2013a). Charity accountability in the UK: Through the eyes of the donor. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 10(3/4), 259-278.
Connolly, C. Hyndman, N. (2013b). Toward charity accountability, Public Management Review, 15(7), 945-968.
Connolly, C., Hyndman, N., McConville, D. (2013a). Conversion Ratios, Efficiency and Obfuscation: A Study of the Impact of Changed UK Charity Accounting Requirements on External Stakeholders, Voluntas, 24(3), 785-804.
Connolly, C., Hyndman, N., McConville, D. (2013b). UK charity accounting: An exercise in widening stakeholder engagement, The British Accounting Review, 45(1), 58-69.
Cordery, C.J., Morgan, G.G. (2013). Special Issue on Charity Accounting, Reporting and Regulation, Voluntas, 24(3), 757-759.
CRA - Canada Revenue Agency (2009). Registered charity vs. non-profit organization, Canada Revenue Agency, April 22, online: <http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/chrts/pplyng/rgstrtn/rght-eng.html>.
CRA - Canada Revenue Agency (2014). Charities Listings, September 15, online: <http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/chrts-gvng/lstngs/menu-eng.html>.
Dainelli, F., Manetti, G., Sibilio, B. (2013). Web-Based Accountability Practices in Non-profit Organizations : The Case of Natioanl Museums, Voluntas, 24(3), 649-665.
Delfin, F.G., Tang, S.Y. (2008). Foundation impact on environmental nongovernmental organizations: The grantees’ perspective, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 37(4), 603-625.
Frumkin, P. (2006). Strategic Giving: The Art and Science of Philanthropy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Glass, J., Brouard, F. (2015). Public Information Sharing and Transparency among Grantmaking Foundations – A preliminary discussion in a Canadian context, Discussion Paper, Laboratoire Montréalais de Recherche sur la Philanthropie Canadienne / Montreal Research Laboratory on Canadian Philanthropy (LMRPC/MRLCP) and Sprott Centre for Social Enterprises / Centre Sprott pour les entreprises sociales (SCSE/CSES), May, 21p.
Gordon, T., Khumawala, S.B., Kraut, M.A., Meade, J.A. (2007). The Quality and Reliability of Form 990 data: Are Users being Misled, Academy of Accounting and Financial Studies Journal, 11(special issue), p.27-49.
Gordon, T.P., Knock, C.L., Neely, D.G. (2009). The role of rating agencies in the market for charitable contributions: An empirical test, Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 28(6), 469-484.
GrantCraft (2014). Opening Up: Demystifying Funder Transparency. New York: Foundation Center, online: <http://www.grantcraft.org/assets/content/resources/transparency.pdf>.
Hammack, D.C., Anheier, H.K. (2010). Looking forward: American foundations between contintuity and change. In D.C. Hammack and H.K. Anheier (Eds.) American foundations: Their roles and contributions to society Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. (pp.388–402)
Hammack, D. C., Anheier H. K. (2013). A Versatile American Institution: The Changing Ideals and Realities of Philanthropic Foundations. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.
Hind, A. (2011). New development: Increasing public trust and confidence in charities: on the side of angels, Public Money & Management, 31(3), 201-205.
Huang, H.J., Hooper, K. (2011). New Zealand funding organisations: How do they make decisions on allocating funds to not‐for‐profit organisations? Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 8(4), 425-449.
Hyndman, N. (1990). Charity accounting – an empirical study of the information needs of contributors to UK fund raising charities, Financlal Accountability & Management, 6(4), 295-307.
Hyndman, N. (1991). Contributors to charities – a comparison of their information needs and the perceptions of such by the providers of information, Financlal Accountability & Management, 7(2), 69-82.
Hyndman, N. (2010). Debate: the challenge of calling charities to account, Public Money & Management, 30(6), 328-329.
Hyndman, N., McMahon, D. (2010). The evolution of the UK charity Statement of Recommended Practice: the influence of key stakeholders, European Management Journal, 28(6), 455-466.
Imagine Canada and Philanthropic Foundations Canada (2014). Assets & Giving Trends of Canada’s Grantmaking Foundations, Imagine Canada / Philanthropic Foundations Canada, September. Online: <http://sectorsource.ca/sites/default/files/resources/files/trends-canadas-grantmaking-foundations-sept2014.pdf>.
Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.), as amended (thereafter ITA).
Industry Canada (2013a). Corporate Records and Filing Obligations. Online: <https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/cd-dgc.nsf/eng/cs05007.html>.
Industry Canada (2013b). Your Reporting Obligations under the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act (NFP Act). Online: <https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/cd-dgc.nsf/eng/cs04956.html>.
Johnston, P. (2012). Good Grantmaking: A Guide for Canadian Foundations. Philanthropic Foundations of Canada, September.
Kaplan, R.S., Grossman, A.S. (2010). The Emerging Capital Market For Nonprofits, Harvard Business Review, 88(10), 110-118.
Kilcullen, L., Hancock, P., Izan H.Y. (2007). User requirements for not-for-profit entity financial reporting: An international comparison, Australian Accounting Review, 17(1), 26-37.
Koppel, J. (2005). Pathologies of Accountability: ICANN and the Challenge of “Multiple Accountabilities Disorder.” Public Administration Review, 65(1), 94–108.
Koppel, J. (2011). Accountability for global governance organizations. In Accountable governance: Problems and promises. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe. (p.55–77)
Leat, D. (2007). Information for a messy world: Making sense of pre-grant inquiry. Third Sector Review, 13(1), 33-55.
Lee, M. (2004). Public reporting: A neglected aspect of nonprofit accountability, Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 15(2), 169-185.
Lenczner, M., Phillips, S. (2012). From Stories To Evidence: How Mining Data Can Promote Innovation In The Nonprofit Sector. Technology Innovation Management Review, 2(7): 10-15. Online: <http://timreview.ca/article/575>.
Mitchell, R.K., Agle, B.R., Wood, D.J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts, Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853-886.
Morgan, G.G., Fletcher, N.J. (2013). Mandatory Public Benefit Reporting as a Basis for Charity Accountability: Findings from England and Wales, Voluntas, 24(3), 805-830.
Northcott, A., Uytterhagen, S. (2002). Practices and Policies of Private Foundations in Canada. online: www.maxbell.org/sites/default/files/PolPrac.pdf
Palmer, P.D. (2013). Exploring attitudes to financial reporting in the Australian not-for-profit sector, Accounting & Finance, 53(1), 217-241.
Patrizi, P., McMullan, B.J. (1999). Realizing the potential of program evaluation, Foundation News and Commentary, 40, 1-8.
Pearson, H. (2010). Funder collaboratives: Trend or tool?, The Philanthropist / Le Philanthrope, 23(2), 120-125.
Phillips, S.D. (2013). Shining light on charities or looking in the wrong place? Regulation-by-transparency in Canada. Voluntas, 24(3), 881-905.
Registraire des entreprises Québec (2012). Rechercher une entreprise au registre, December 5, online : <http://www.registreentreprises.gouv.qc.ca/fr/services_ligne/demande-de-services/s00436.aspx>.
ServiceOntario (2014). Corporation profile report, November 25, online: <https://www.services.gov.on.ca/locations/serviceDetails.do?locale=EN&id=11590>.
Sinclair, R., Hooper, K., Mohiyaddin, M. (2011). The Quality of Charities’ Audit Reports in New Zealand, New Zealand Journal of Applied Business Research, 9(2), 23-41.
Tierney, T. J., Steele, R. (2011). The Donor-Grantee Trap: How ineffective collaboration undermines philanthropic results for society and what can be done about it. New York, N.Y.; The Bridgespan Group, online: <http://www.bridgespan.org/the-donorgrantee-trap.aspx>.
Van Ymeren, J. (2015). An Open Future: Data priorities for the not-for-profit sector. Toronto: The Mowat Centre.
Yasmin, S., Haniffa, R., Hudaib, M. (2014). Communicated Accountability by Faith-Based Charity Organisations, Journal of Business Ethics, 122(1), 103-123.
Téléchargements
Publié-e
Numéro
Rubrique
Licence
La soumissions d’un manuscrit original à la Revue canadienne de recherche sur les OSBL et l'économie sociale / Canadian Journal of Nonprofit and Social Economy Research (ANSERJ) implique que le texte soit original et qu’il n'ait pas été publié ou soumis pour publication ailleurs.
La revue estime que la publication de la recherche scientifique a pour but de diffuser les connaissances, et ce dans un régime à but non lucratif qui ne bénéficie ni à l'éditeur ni à l'auteur sur le plan financier. La revue se donne la responsabilité, envers ses auteurs et la société en général, de rendre le contenu disponible en ligne étant donné que la technologie permet. Conformément à ce principe, la revue publiera tous ses numéros en ligne.
Les auteurs qui publient dans l'ANSERJ s'engagent à publier leurs articles sous la licence Creative Commons, Attribution - Pas d’Utilisation Commerciale - Pas de Modification 4.0 International (CC BY). Cette licence permet à quiconque de copier et de distribuer l'article à condition que l'attribution appropriée soit donnée. Pour plus de détails sur les droits qu'un auteur accorde aux utilisateurs de son travail, veuillez consulter le résumé de la licence et la licence complète.
[
Le contenu publié entre 2010 et 2019-10 est sous la « Licence de Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-
Le contenu publié entre 2019-10 et 2023-12 est sous la « Licence Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-
Le contenu publié après 2023-12 est sous la « Licence Creative Commons 4.0 International » (CC BY).]
