Readability of PBE reporting

The standardisation of Public Benefit Entities reporting has developed since 1992. Beneficial PBE reporting requires representations of position and performance, congruent with the Qualitative Characteristics of the conceptual framework. Non-regulation, optional adoption and sector-neutral standards led to issues of erroneous, complicated and misleading language in past reports. After calls for change, sector specific regulations and a tier system was introduced to address negative impacts on PBE reporting, and catering to different PBE types or users. This study aims to investigate if current reporting is meeting expected outcomes of regulation, specifically: Has the 2015 adoption of sector-specific standards impacted the readability of New Zealand PBE's annual reports? Data was collected by a convenience sample of PBE compliant annual reports and the corresponding sector-neutral report. These reports were converted, cleaned and measured for readability (by applying Flesch Reading Ease, Flesch Kincaid Grade Level and passive sentences measures). The resulting data was analysed with a Paired t-Test for a significant difference. FRE results indicated 93% of reports were tougher than ‘slightly difficult to read’. Most reports indicated a difference of one point or more, 53% of reports improved, while, 33% of reports declined after implementing the PBE regulations. This study concludes sector specific standards have not resulted in a consistent, statistically significant, difference in PBE for any readability measures studied. The use of jargon and the lack of specificity in readability measures are possible limitations of this research. However, for PBE’s to deliver efficient annual reports for users, further changes may be needed

The implications of new financial reporting standards on New Zealand charities

This research aims to analyse the impact of new reporting standards on NZ charities. The research specifically focuses on the implications of new reporting standards of charities in areas like transparency, convenience for practitioners and accounting costs under new reporting standards. The research covers transparency aspects by trying to find the difference in truthful and accurate representation of charities in their annual financial reports after the introduction of new standards, compared to when charities were self-regulated under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. The research also covers the aspect of practitioners’ convenience, by investigating whether new reporting standards made accounting practices for charities easier and clearer, or more complicated. Lastly, research was conducted to ascertain the increase or decrease in accounting cost for charities to comply with new financial reporting standards. The study used qualitative methodology for research. The data was collected through semi-structured interviews to gain in-depth knowledge of the impact of new reporting standards on charities. There were four participants in total, accountants working for different charities. The duration of each interview was approximately 20 minutes, and were conducted at the charity organisation’s premises. The method of analysis used for the research was content analysis. The findings of the research suggest that the new reporting standards and statutory audit requirements have generally increased transparency within the charity sector in New Zealand. On the other hand, accounting costs have gone up for charities, especially Tier 2 and tier 3 charities. Charities that previously complied with IFRS have to face minimal effect on accounting cost. The convenience for practitioners has decreased since smaller charities are finding it difficult to comply with new reporting requirements and preparation of service performance reports which are now part of annual reporting. New financial reporting standards have provided a much-needed reporting structure, especially to Tier 3 and Tier 4 charities. Charities that complied with IFRS for their annual reporting found it easy to make the transition to the new reporting standards. In conclusion, the new reporting standards are a step in a right direction. However charities services need to hold regular workshops in every region for charities in order to provide more awareness about new reporting requirements to help charities through this transition phase. Small charities usually operate on a very limited budged, so templates and training for service performance reporting should be provided these are now a part of annual reports for Tier 3 and Tier 4 charities

Special reports; Statement on auditing standards, 014

1. This Statement applies to auditors\u27 reports issued in connection with a. Financial statements that are prepared in accordance with a comprehensive basis of accounting other than generally accepted accounting principles (paragraphs 2-8). b. Specified elements, accounts, or items of a financial statement (paragraphs 9-17). c. Compliance with aspects of contractual agreements or regulatory requirements related to audited financial statements (paragraphs 18-19). d. Financial information presented in prescribed forms or schedules that require a prescribed form of auditor\u27s report (paragraphs 20-21). Reports that meet the foregoing criteria are special reports or special purpose reports.https://egrove.olemiss.edu/aicpa_sas/1010/thumbnail.jp

Outcomes from collaborative provision audit: frameworks, guidance and formal agreements

The reports on Collaborative provision audits conducted between 2005 and 2007 indicate that, in general, the frameworks established by institutions for the management of quality and academic standards in their collaborative provision are sound and effective. Nevertheless, most reports provided advice on how particular aspects of the frameworks might be improved. The reports describe the various models or types of collaboration undertaken by institutions, and the relationships between these and the quality management arrangements employed. Recommendations in this context focused on the need for clarity in the use of terms and their procedural implications. Particular difficulties were associated with accreditation agreements in a number of institutions. The reports' consideration of formal agreements between awarding and partner institutions suggests several recurring themes, including: the relationship between types of collaboration and the contracted arrangements and responsibilities; the relationship between institutional and programme elements in agreements; arrangements for the review and renewal of agreements; and the need for ratification of agreements prior to the operation of programmes. The guidance provided on frameworks and processes for managing quality and standards in collaborative provision emerged as a widespread strength in awarding institutions and was linked with numerous features of good practice

Special reports; Statement on auditing standards, 062

1. This statement applies to auditors\u27 reports issued in connection with the following: a. Financial statements that are prepared in conformity with a comprehensive basis of accounting other than generally accepted accounting principles (paragraphs 2 through 10) b. Specified elements, accounts, or items of a financial statement (paragraphs 11 through 18) c. Compliance with aspects of contractual agreements or regulatory requirements related to audited financial statements (paragraphs 19 through 21) d. Financial presentations to comply with contractual agreements or regulatory provisions (paragraphs 22 through 30) e. Financial information presented in prescribed forms or schedules that require a prescribed form of auditor\u27s report (paragraphs 32 and 33)https://egrove.olemiss.edu/aicpa_sas/1063/thumbnail.jp

Educational leadership….

An introduction is presented in which it discusses various reports within the issue on topics including the implications for leadership training, the exclusionary practices of educational leadership, and the standards for performance

Analysis of EEC Regulation 2092/91 in relation to other national and international organic standards

This Deliverable 3.2 report presents an analysis of differences between EEC Regulation 2092/91 and other organic standards and their implementation, using a specially developed database (www.organicrules.org). It further reports on database development. The work was carried out as part of the “EEC 2092/91 (Organic) Revision” STREP project (No. SSPE-CT- 2004-502397) within the EU 6th Framework Programme. The main objective was to identify differences in organic standards in relation to Regulation (EEC) 2092/91 and to analyse selected national governmental and private organic standards with the aim of identifying specific areas in the (EEC) 2092/91 where revision in terms of harmonisation, regionalisation or simplification may be possible

Frequency of financial reports

Interim reports are summary statements that are usually prepared in semi-annual format in the UK. Until the EU’s Transparency Directive was put into practice in the UK in 2007, there was no legal necessity for companies to provide interim financial reports. (Note 1) Instead such preparation was only a regulatory requirement of the London Stock Exchange. The responsibility on companies listed on the London Stock Exchange to provide these financial reports was first prepared as an suggestion in 1964, to meet the requirements for updates by financial analysts (May, 1971). In 1973, this advice to provide the market with interim information became a requirement for the admission of stocks and securities to be listed on the stock Exchange (Lunt, 1982). This study investigates the preparation of interim reports, and accounting standards for interim reporting. Also, this study discusses the main purpose of interim reports, the methods of preparation and the benefits of reporting frequency

Professional learning for school principals: development in Scotland

This paper discusses the recent origins and development of professional learning and especially preparation programmes for Scottish school principals. Scotland has adopted a 'standards' based approach to continuing professional development and a Framework if Standards has emerged since 1998. A synthesis of the official reports and some of the research available is offered with a view to highlighting the further developments now being advocated and consulted upon under the aegis if a teacher-focused national Continuous Professional Development Advisory Group and its sub-group on leadership

Quality factors and coding standards - a comparison between open source forges

Enforcing adherence to standards in software development in order to produce high quality software artefacts has long been recognised as best practice in traditional software engineering. In a distributed heterogeneous development environment such those found within the Open Source paradigm, coding standards are informally shared and adhered to by communities of loosely coupled developers. Following these standards could potentially lead to higher quality software. This paper reports on the empirical analysis of two major forges where OSS projects are hosted. The first one, the KDE forge, provides a set of guidelines and coding standards in the form of a coding style that developers may conform to when producing the code source artefacts. The second studied forge, SourceForge, imposes no formal coding standards on developers. A sample of projects from these two forges has been analysed to detect whether the SourceForge sample, where no coding standards are reinforced, has a lower quality than the sample from KDE. Results from this analysis form a complex picture; visually, all the selected metrics show a clear divide between the two forges, but from the statistical standpoint, clear distinctions cannot be drawn amongst these quality related measures in the two forge samples