1

Published in Australian Accounting Review (2011) 31(3):193-200: DOI: 10.1111/j.1835-2561.2010.00105.x:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1835-2561.2010.00105.x/abstract

This is a pre-production version – please follow the link to the published version

Valuing volunteers: expanding the relevance and reliability debate

Carolyn Cordery1 and Gwynn Narraway2

Abstract

Volunteers’ inputs to public and other not-for-profit organisations are significant.

However, while statisticians gather data on volunteering, accountants do so less often due

to a debate as to whether the relevance of recognising volunteer input in financial reports

outweighs the reliability of that data and the costs of its derivation.

This paper presents a survey of voluntary organisations that publish financial reports. It

explores whether the promise of funding for volunteer effort has been matched with

increasing financial reporting of volunteering. The results show there is little recognition

of volunteer labour in financial reports, reflecting the unresolved relevance-reliability

debate in the accounting profession.3

Classification: M41 Accounting; Not-for-profit; volunteers

1 Corresponding Author: Senior Lecturer, School of Accounting and Commercial Law, Victoria

University of Wellington, P O Box 600, Wellington, New Zealand. Phone: 644463-5761; Fax

6444635076; Email Carolyn.Cordery@vuw.ac.nz

2 Senior Lecturer, School of Business, The Open Polytechnic of New Zealand, Private Bag 31914,

Lower Hutt, New Zealand.

3 We acknowledge research assistance from Letisha Tan, the feedback from colleagues and participants

at the 2008 Asian Pacific Conference on International Accounting Issues and AFAANZ in 2009. We

are also grateful for the input from the two anonymous reviewers.

2

Valuing volunteers: expanding the relevance and reliability debate

Democratic societies encourage strong civil society through active citizenship. Political

scientists such as Putnam (2000) measure the strength of that society in social capital

terms through social networks, philanthropy and donations of volunteer time.

Governments are also interested in reducing the cost of public services by drawing on

these volunteers (Brudney and Duncombe 1992; Gazley and Brudney 2005). Not-for-

profit organisations report that volunteers are vital to their operations, as they reduce

costs and enable these organisations to deliver services that are not otherwise possible

(Narraway and Cordery 2009).

The value of this volunteer time can be used as “funding in kind” to match European

Social Funding streams allocated by some European governments (for example, Wales

Council for Voluntary Action 2010). In New Zealand, a tax policy discussion document

recommended that volunteering could be encouraged if the organisations for which they

volunteered were offered monetary support depending on the hours donated (Cullen and

Dunn 2006). Further, for social services providers, the Pathway to Partnership

programme announced in 2008 promised full costing, including the costs of supporting

volunteers (Ministry of Social Development 2008).1 In order to achieve the full benefits

of proposed government funding, it could be expected that public and other not-for-profit

organisations would recognise these contributed services in their reports similarly to other

donations. This is especially so, as Connolly et al. (2009) note that funders are the key

stakeholders and users of charities’ financial reports.

3

Prior studies of the practice of valuing and recognising income from donations-in-kind

(such as goods and voluntary services) show this information is not available, despite the

interest in the costs and benefits of volunteers (for example, Adams et al. 1989; Mook et

al. 2005). The dissonance between concepts and practice in the recognition and disclosure

of donations-in-kind suggests that, although political scientists may generate pragmatic

valuation models for social capital, such models are less developed in accounting.

In light of growing funder and policy-maker interest in the value of volunteers, we

undertook research to ascertain the take-up of accounting standards’ pronouncements on

reporting the value of volunteers. This paper explores the debate in the financial reporting

of contributed services as one type of donation-in-kind. It comments on current

accounting standards and analyses research on the topic in order to assess the relevance

and reliability debates over valuing volunteers’ services. In this paper, the reason for a

lack of reporting is posited as a dichotomy between those in favour and those against.

Those in favour of recognising volunteer time stress its relevance to inform stakeholders

of the size and influence of organisations receiving donated services. For instance,

international standard-setters2 support recognition of donated goods and services (and

recommend valuing them at fair value) due to the relevance of this data for decision-

makers (NZICA 2007). Those against reporting these donations cite a lack of information

reliability. Others suggest that the number of models for valuing contributions can lead to

confusion (Quarter et al. 2003). The consequence is that comparability of financial

statements is threatened (Narraway and Cordery 2009).

4

Resolving the relevance-reliability debate is of renewed importance for three reasons, two

of which are concerned with the policy implications of a failure to report significant

donated labour and the third, the potential impact on the supply of volunteers.

First, local governments and not-for-profit organisations increasingly use volunteers

alongside paid workers in core government services (Brudney and Duncombe 1992).

Notwithstanding this, few organisations are likely to be supported by direct government

funding for those volunteers, despite the fact that the costs of attracting, training and

retaining volunteers are significant (Brudney and Duncombe 1992; Gazley and Brudney

2005). The invisibility of volunteers in financial reports may underpin this funding

failure. (As noted, some European organisations are able to use volunteer time as

donations-in-kind for funding applications and New Zealand’s policy-makers have

considered reimbursing volunteer time. These efforts are not assisted by the invisibility of

volunteers in reporting.)

The second policy implication of not reporting contributed services is that it may assist

individual organisations to elude the spotlight of accountability. Frequently, financial

reporting demands are reduced based on organisational size (for example, in Appendix 5

of the Statement of Recommended Practice (SORP) for charities in England and Wales

(Charity Commission 2005)). Trigg and Nabangi (1995) suggest that not-for-profit

organisations may attempt to make their organisations ‘look small’ by omitting the

financial value of volunteers’ inputs from their income statements. If this is the case, and

small organisations face fewer demands, then those organisations that omit volunteers

5

from their financial statements will be able to reduce the reporting they provide to their

stakeholders.

The third reason for the importance of this debate affects the supply of volunteers. The

increasing need for volunteers has led to government promotion of volunteering (Gazley

and Brudney 2005). This, along with increasing demands on volunteers have led to the

rise of “social enterprise” volunteers that Wilson et al. (2001) assert need to feel valued to

be motivated and retained. Volunteers may be more motivated when they are aware that

their inputs are valued by the organisation.

The objective of this paper is to critically evaluate the current accounting standards on the

recognition of donated labour, and to compare and contrast prior and current practice in

light of the relevance-reliability dichotomy. The academic discussion on reporting

volunteer donations has been sporadic and empirical studies are even less evident. Adams

et al. (1989) found that the preparers they surveyed omitted contributed services from

their financial statements and this paper analyses the findings of a more recent survey

within the New Zealand not-for-profit arena. Despite the growing relevance of volunteer

time to grantors and policy-makers, this survey reveals a continuing tension between

information relevance and reliability. The paper concludes with a discussion and

recommendations for future research in this area.

Accounting pronouncements on valuation of donated services

Valuing donated services has been discussed by standard setters since the late 1980s. The

notion of valuing donated labour is underpinned by, for example, the International

Accounting Standards Board’s (IASB) Framework (2008) which defines revenues as

6

“increases in economic benefits”, implying that contributed services could be direct

economic inflows or savings in outflows. These donations save the organisation from

purchasing goods and/or services elsewhere and therefore increase the entity’s service

potential. While the IASB framework does not specifically discuss contributed services,

the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) in the US has discussed it at length,

there are provisions in the charity SORP from England and Wales, the Australian

Accounting Standard Board’s (AASB) 1004 (2008) makes comment and the International

Public Sector Accounting Standards Board (IPSASB) have addressed this.

In early research, Bossio (1991, 6) noted that the FASB “believes that in concept3 all

contributions should be recognised in financial statements … regardless of the nature of

the item donated.” The argument for reporting all donations (including volunteers’ time)

was that the information would be useful, comparable, complete and relevant to users.

The FASB noted that completeness of information was essential to reliability, even if

measurement was difficult (Bossio 1991).

This position was stated in FASB’s 1990 proposed Accounting for Contributions

Received and Contributions Made (FASB 1990). However, the political process through

which accounting policies are derived compromised that call to relevance, due to

concerns expressed from organisations about measurement. Organisations highlighted the

costs of calculating volunteer time as one issue; a second concern was that if the

organisation could not control volunteer effort, recognising voluntary labour in financial

statements would be likely to lead to overstatement (Adams et al. 1989). Thus, when

SFAS 116 Accounting for Contributions Received and Contributions Made (FASB 1993)

7

was promulgated, it stated that volunteer time could be recognised when (and only when)

the services create or enhance non-financial assets; require specialised skills; and would

otherwise need to be purchased.

In England and Wales, the SORP issued by the Charity Commission (2005: para. 133)

noted donated time should be included at market value in financial statements “where the

benefit to the charity is reasonably quantifiable and measurable”. However, similarly to

FASB’s SFAS 116, it requires the services to be recognised only when they would

otherwise have been purchased. In addition, however, Trustees are encouraged to disclose

donated labour in terms of activities and inputs in order to show a true and fair view and

to meet stakeholders’ needs for information that will show how the organisation has met

its objectives.

The SORP (Charity Commission 2005) represented a change from the prior SORP

(Charity Commission 2000) that had recommended entities did not attribute a value to

volunteer time, but instead that they should classify these donations as intangible income,

thus restricting them to note disclosure. The change of view on valuing volunteer time

was no doubt partially in response to a Strategy Unit (2002) Report calling for increased

transparency in financial reporting, particularly in the context of individual charities’

“input” and “outcome” reporting and the recommendations of the Charity Finance

Directors Group (CFDG 2003). They noted the importance of volunteer input to the

charities in which they work, recommending volunteer time should be valued and

included in financial statements so that reporting of inputs is consistent and public

confidence increased.

8

In respect of public sector organisations, the IPSAS 23 Revenue from Non-Exchange

Transactions (Including Taxes and Transfers) (IPSASB 2006) also recommends that

donations of services-in-kind be recognised. The caveat is that the entity must have

control over the services provided, the donations should be able to be measured reliably,

and should be material. Alternatively, entities are encouraged to disclose these

contributed services.

AASB 1004 (2008) also requires the entity to have control over volunteers (as they would

over employees), and for the measurement of the donation to be reliable. In addit ion, it

should also be probable that economic benefits should flow from volunteers’

contributions before they are reported. In this respect, AASB 1004 (2008) treats

volunteers services as non-reciprocal transfers similarly to IPSAS 23 (2006).

In New Zealand, the lack of a single authoritative standard on recognising sector-specific

issues such as volunteer time led to the development of the Not for Profit Financial

Reporting Guide (the Guide) (NZICA 2007). Based on IASB and IPSASB

pronouncements, it encourages not-for-profit organisations to include the value of

volunteer services in organisations’ financial statements. While it recognises that IASB

standards do not require volunteer services to be valued in the financial statements, this

Guide observed that users will be more aware of how the organisation has met its

objectives when it provides them with complete information on “the resources it has used

and that are required to provide its services” (NZICA 2007: 5.36).

In line with the pronouncements on which it is based, the Guide (NZICA 2007)

recommends that donations be recognised at their fair value at the time of receipt.

9

Organisations must assess the input of volunteers’ time at the market value of that time

donated, or the value of the services provided, where this is able to be ascertained.

Recognition is voluntary, but the Guide (NZICA, 2007, 5.39) states that entities should,

at a minimum, disclose the nature and amount of volunteer services received.

While standard setters are more favourable to valuing volunteer time than they have been

in the past, this is built on the notion of relevance of the information. However, reliability

remains an issue. Both of these concepts are now briefly analysed.

The Relevance argument

Information is relevant if it impacts the decision-making of users of financial statements.

Volunteers’ contributed services can be recognised as income to an organisation if those

services are relevant to the entity, if they comprise an increase in service potential in the

form of enhancements of assets or decreases of liabilities, and if they arise in the course

of the entity’s ordinary activities (FASB 1993; AASB 2008). In order to be deemed asset-

enhancing, contributed services must create a resource that can be controlled by the entity

and from which future economic benefits (or service potential) will ensue. The inference

of the standards setters is that organisations should have control over donated labour (as

they do over employees) to direct them to achieve organisational objectives.

Information about donated labour meeting these criteria would therefore be relevant.

Indeed, a recent Australian study found that these disclosures of non-reciprocal transfers

are considered important by users (Kilcullen et al. 2007). Organisations surveyed by

Adams et al. (1989) that recognised or disclosed dollar values in their financial reports,

10

did so because it was deemed relevant for management and external stakeholders, and to

generate information for cost reimbursement, rather than because it was required by

legislation. For example, a number of respondents reported donated labour in order to

cost their services adequately for third-party reimbursement or matching-grant programs

(Adams et al. 1989). This information also made the reporting comparable to other local

government and not-for-profit organisations.

Of the organisations that did not value donated labour in the survey by Adams et al.

(1989, 19), one noted, “For the most part volunteers do … things that would not

otherwise be done”, and another, “Many volunteer jobs have no operational impact, but

rather benefit the volunteer’s feelings of self-worth.” Therefore, although volunteers’

services are relevant to the construction of social capital, organisations and the

volunteers, they are not reported. The voluntary nature of reporting and the fact that the

contributed services are not an integral part of the organisational effort means volunteer

time will remain invisible. As the organisation is likely to report their expenses in

attracting, training and retaining volunteers, it would be relevant to report the donated

time as revenue. Where volunteers are also beneficiaries, it would be relevant to report

this as a cost.

Reliability

While transparent reporting of material inputs is perceived to be relevant; the respondents

to the survey by Adams et al. (1989) noted concern with a lack of reliability in volunteer

time calculations. Information that is reliable has a representational faithfulness to the

transactions it represents and (as noted by the FASB 1990: x) must be ‘verifiable and

11

neutral’. Only eight percent of the organisations surveyed by Adams et al. (1989)

recognised the costs of those services in their financial reports as preparers perceived that

the information lacked reliability. Indeed, Pendlebury et al. (1994) state that reliability

presents ‘the most significant technical problem’. A number of researchers have called

for more robust measurement practices (e.g. ACCESS 2003).

In the last two decades there has been a growing body of research into how volunteer

time should be valued. Karn (1982; 1983) extended the notion of simple replacement cost

to take into account the type of tasks performed. Quarter et al. (2003) used models based

on both replacement costs and opportunity costs, although they recognised that neither

method is technically precise. Brown (1999) dealt with deficiencies in an opportunity cost

method by using a multiplier, and Handy and Srinvasan (2004) individually assessed the

likely (or lowest) value of volunteers’ contributed services. These measurement models

should be useful to organisations.

Yet, valuation methods can be costly, leading to a question as to the benefits of the

information (Adams et al. 1989; New Zealand Federation of Voluntary Welfare

Organisations 2006). For example, rather than categorising volunteers and applying a

value to each category, the method used by Wolfe et al. (1993) required individual

interviews with volunteers to establish the opportunity cost foregone. The concerns

relating to cost often conflates to a lack of reliability, even when the disclosures would be

relevant.

12

Is volunteer time valued?

Two decades ago, Adams et al. (1989, 2) undertook a survey seeking “to understand the

current practices of not-for-profit organisations in the recognition, measurement, and

disclosure of contributed services”. The survey of preparers yielded 506 usable responses

from organisations receiving contributed services that issued general purpose financial

reports. The respondent organisations covered a broad spectrum of not-for-profit

organisations, including hospitals, colleges and universities and religious organisations.

While all these organisations received contributed services, only eight percent of

respondents valued their volunteers’ time in their financial statements. A further six

percent valued volunteers’ time for internal purposes. Adams et al. (1989) found that

only 17 percent of preparers agreed that the assigning and reporting of dollar values to

volunteers’ time was useful; while 67 percent stated that the disclosure of the number (or

percentage) of hours donated for each major activity would be more meaningful than

dollar values or omission altogether.

More recently Mook et al. (2005) surveyed accountants from Canadian not-for-profit

organisations about their general purpose financial reporting practices. Ninety-two

percent of respondents agreed that including volunteer time provided “a more complete

picture of an organisation’s performance story” (411). Although 37 per cent of

respondents recorded donations of volunteer time for internal purposes, only three

percent of them recognised that time in their financial statements (Mook et al. 2005).

Similar to the preparers and users in the study by Adams et al. (1989), relevance was a

13

reason organisations would report donated labour, while a lack of reliability was most

often cited as the reason not to report these significant inputs.

Survey research in New Zealand to update the Adams et al. (1989) US survey

The NZICA Guide (NZICA 2007), New Zealand’s taxation discussions and the moves to

full-costing of social services suggest a growing interest in recognising volunteers’ time.

In order to ascertain the preparedness of organisations to respond to policy shifts that

would provide them with extra funding should they be able to produce data on volunteer

services, we surveyed voluntary organisations that prepare financial reports. This would

also enable New Zealand practice to be compared with the US practice, as reported in the

Adams et al. (1989) study.

The data was collected through a national web-based survey of not-for-profit

organisations that employ volunteers. The web-based survey methodology was preferred

to interviewing organisations or undertaking a case study, first due to the manner in

which general sector characteristics could be gathered from a large sample of

organisations and secondly, to serve as a comparison to the Adams et al. (1989) US-based

survey of organisations. In addition, the web-based survey had structured questions and

interactive ‘branches’ which guided organisations through the questionnaire, presenting

them with relevant questions only. The opportunity for respondents to add comments

added clarity and enabled data to be re-categorised during analysis if necessary.

However, unlike the Adams et al. (1989) questionnaire, the survey software was unable

to provide organisations with the option to rank data by importance.4 The survey was pre-

tested with the assistance of Volunteering New Zealand, and trialled by a group of

14

volunteers representing a cross-section of not-for-profit organisations employing

volunteers.

A sampling strategy was designed. The Non-Profit Institutions Satellite Account had

already identified that there are 97,000 not-for-profit organisations in New Zealand

(Statistics New Zealand 2007b). Three options were considered for drawing the sample,

namely: a random sample of organisations, a quota sample in proportion to their

comparative size, or a purposive (convenience) sample (Alreck and Settle, 2004). While a

pure random sample would be the most desirable, this was not feasible as there is no

national listing of community and voluntary organisations that would enable a random

sample of voluntary organisations to be chosen. This lack of national database meant a

quota sample, based on organisational characteristics, was not able to be taken. Therefore

a purposive (convenience) sample, combined with significant advertising of the survey

through national networks,5 was adopted for this study. The sampling strategy meant that

organisations answering the survey actively involve volunteers in their service delivery

and employ staff.

Replies to the survey were received from 218 organisations representing a number of

different sectors. As shown in figure 1, the sample collected is broadly proportionate to

the spread of voluntary organisations reported by Statistics New Zealand according to

activity (2007b). Volunteer organisations that dominated the total respondents were

culture, sports and recreation (24%), community/development/ housing/employment and

training (17%), education and research (16%), emergency/ social services (17%) and

health (13%). The limitations of using purposive sampling resulted in minority sectors,

15

such as business associations and international aid organisations, being under-

represented. This small sample cannot be generalised across the population, but it

provides a comparison to the Adams et al. (1989) survey. While respondents to the US

survey were mainly hospitals, colleges, universities and religious organisations, this New

Zealand survey was targeted at not-for-profit organisations.

[Insert Figure 1 here]

The majority of respondents had relatively small numbers of volunteers, with 60

organisations using under 20 volunteers in any one year and only 19 organisations using

more than 1,000. The range suggests that there was a mix of large national and smaller,

locally-based organisations.

Survey findings

Respondents were asked whether they made voluntary disclosures in respect of

contributed services in their annual financial statements. It can be seen in figure 2, that 79

percent of New Zealand respondents do not recognise or disclose either the hours donated

or the value of donated time in their financial statements or for costing purposes. This is

broadly similar to the Adams et al. (1989) survey where 86 percent of organisations did

not assign dollar amounts to their volunteer time. Similarly to the Mook et al. (2005)

study, in this New Zealand study less than three percent of community and voluntary

organisations recognised volunteers’ donated time in their annual financial statements.

This was fewer than the eight per cent of organisations practicing this behaviour reported

in the Adams et al. (1989) study.

16

[Insert Figure 2 here]

As to calculating volunteer input for costing purposes, 5.2 percent of organisations did so,

as shown in figure 2. A number of organisations in this study disclosed the number of

hours donated, rather than the value of these hours in their annual financial statements

with a total of 63 organisations (37.5 percent) noting that they recorded some or all of the

hours that volunteers donate, even if these were not disclosed in the financial reports.

Examples of comments were:

Time is recorded when volunteers support clients. Other time (e.g.

training/debriefing) is not recorded.

We have a computerised attendance register that records all attendance at

musters and incidents.

Volunteers’ attendance is recorded in the Minutes and records of all meetings.

We do sometimes use a dollar value when applying for funding.

Survey respondents were also asked for the reasons they might not recognise volunteer

time. The questionnaire enabled them to select as many answers as were appropriate in

order to answer this question. The total number of replies to this question was 268. Figure

3 shows the percentages of replies.

[Insert Figure 3 here]

It can be seen from figure 3, technical issues (“it is too difficult to value volunteer time”

and “the cost of recording outweighs the benefit”) accounted for 51 percent of

respondents. Twenty eight per cent of respondents do not recognise volunteer time

because they do not control volunteers, while a further fifteen per cent cited the fact that

the services donated were non-essential or not material to meeting organisational goals.

17

The survey also asked each organisation for the main reason they did not recognise

volunteer time. While the Adams et al. (1989) report provided relative rankings, in this

New Zealand survey the categories were ranked in order of the properties of respondents

citing each reason as shown in figure 4.

[Insert Figure 4 here]

In figure 4 it can be seen that there are few differences in the explanations as to why

contributed services are not recognised. It can be seen that, although the US data ranked

B highly (“Services would not be performed by salaried personnel if contributed services

were not available”) this was not selected by respondents to this New Zealand survey and

was not a key consideration in omitting the recognition of volunteer time.

Also, organisations commented that they did not value volunteers because (for example):

We have a large number of volunteers working nationwide. It would be a difficult

process to administer.

Staff lack the time to record volunteers’ hours

We prefer not to put a dollar amount on a gift that is priceless.

Other organisations stated that it was necessary to have a system in order to show users

how they had met their mission. For example, one respondent noted:

We haven’t valued volunteers up to now, but we need to for means of valuing our

program and mission.

Discussion and Conclusion

Despite strong encouragement to do so in financial reporting standards, and the interest in

this by funders, organisations responding to this survey seldom recognise contributed

18

services in their financial reports. More than 12 percent of responding organisations made

voluntary financial disclosures on the value of volunteers and/or disclosed details of the

hours and/or costs of services provided by volunteers in their annual financial reports.

These organisations consider that disclosing volunteer labour is relevant, especially those

services relating directly to service provision. For example, some respondents specifically

noted that they recognised volunteers’ time spent with clients or in responding to

emergency services incidents. Other organisations valued volunteers’ time when the data

could be used to support a funding application, recognising that funders are prime

stakeholders. In respect of relevant reporting, the most frequently cited reason not to

report volunteer time was the lack of organisational control over those volunteers.

Secondary reasons were that volunteers’ contributions were immaterial or did not have an

operational impact. Notwithstanding that, respondents stated volunteers are valuable as:

Our focus in on the benefit of volunteer time to the individual (training) and the

community (support).

We value the volunteer but don’t keep a record of time given.

Other organisations stated that they did not count or value donated labour due to the costs

involved, rather than a lack of reliability in the value calculation. Costs subsume the

tension between reliability and relevance. Half of the organisations surveyed that did not

recognise volunteer time noted that recording and valuing volunteer time is “too difficult”

or that the costs exceed the benefit (46% of these noted this was the prime reason).

Therefore, while standard-setters and policy-makers have urged recognition of volunteer

time (e.g. FASB 1993; Charity Commission 2005; IPSASB 2006), many organisations

find that collecting the data is too costly. A number of organisations state that it is

valuable to disclose or recognise donated labour to show they are achieving their mission

19

and to motivate volunteers. This practice of not recognising donations of volunteer time

differs from the practice in reporting donations of funds. Further, organisations are

concerned about the lack of funds to pay volunteers or to reimburse them for their

contributed services.

Although Wilson et al. (2001) noted the rise of “social enterprise” volunteers who need to

be motivated, most organisations surveyed do not appear to consider that reporting these

inputs will assist in the motivation of volunteers. This may be because volunteers are not

the prime users of financial statements (Connolly et al. 2009). Further study to ascertain

the volunteers’ reactions to reporting is necessary to understand why.

Some organisations in this survey had significant numbers of volunteers, but typically did

not report their inputs. Therefore the outputs from these organisations will be

undervalued. Volunteers are not valued because they are perceived as an optional extra,

despite assurances that their contributions are “priceless”.

The continuing invisibility of volunteers from government and other not-for-profit

organisations’ financial statements suggests that accounting’s struggles with reliability

over relevance could impact the future funding of these organisations. Many

organisations state they “could not survive” without the input of volunteers, which

therefore renders the resource a material matter. The need for more cost-effective

methods to value volunteers’ inputs is imperative in an age where governments promise

funding related to volunteer effort. More research is required into appropriate methods

and to analyse how relevant information can become more reliable. Demand from

organisations’ stakeholders and volunteers themselves may provide the impetus to

20

organisations that will recognise the contributions of volunteer workers in building our

communities.

21

Endnotes

1. This programme was stopped following the election of a new government in 2009.

2. These include the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), International Public

Sector Accounting Standards Board (IPSASB) and, although there is no specific standard

in this respect, by implication, the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB).

3. Emphasis in original.

4. The survey was hosted online using the Victoria University of Wellington’s (VUW)

server. Survey Pro 3.0 was the program used to design and publish the online version and

technical assistance was provided by VUW.

5. These included the peak body Volunteering New Zealand which sponsored this and a

volunteer-based study, and two other peak bodies - New Zealand Federation of Voluntary

Welfare Organisations (NZFVWO) and the Association of Non-Government

Organisations of Aotearoa (ANGOA). Furthermore, the survey was advertised through

the national newsletter from the Office of the Community and Voluntary Sector (OCVS).

This government agency is the lead manager for the not-for-profit institutions survey. The

survey was also supported by Statistics New Zealand.

22

References

ACCESS, 2003, An Inception Report: Resourcing, Performance, Accountability. London:

ACCESS.

Adams, J.B., R.J. Bossio, and P. Rohan, 1989, Accounting for contributed services:

survey of preparers and users of financial statements of not-for-profit

organizations. Norwalk, CT: The Financial Accounting Standards Board.

Alreck, P.L. and R.B. Settle, 2004, The Survey Research Handbook (3rd Edition). New

York: McGraw-Hill Irwin.

AASB, 2008, AASB 1004 Contributions (Reissued), Australian Accounting Standards

Board.

Bossio, R., 1991, Accounting for contributions received. Status report. Norwalk, CT:

Financial Accounting Standards Board.

Brown, E., 1999,Assessing the Value of Volunteer Activity. Not-for-profit and Voluntary

Sector Quarterly, 28(1), 3-17.

Brudney, J.L. and W.D. Duncombe, 1992, An Economic Evaluation of Paid, Volunteer,

and Mixed Staffing Options for Public Services Public Administration Review,

52(5): 474-481

Charity Commission, 2000, Accounting and Reporting by Charities: Statement of

Recommended Practice. Charity Commission.

Charity Commission, 2005, Accounting and Reporting by Charities: Statement of

Recommended Practice. Charity Commission.

Charity Finance Directors Group, 2003, Inputs Measurement Project Report: Inputs

Matter. London: CFDG.

Connolly, C., Hyndman, N. & McMahon, D. (2009) Charity Reporting and Accounting:

Taking Stock and Future Reform. Belfast, Queen's University Management

School.

Cullen, M. and P. Dunn, 2006, Tax Incentives for Giving to Charities and Other Non-

Profit Organisations: A Government Discussion Document. Wellington: Inland

Revenue Department.

Handy, F. and N. Srinivasan, 2004, Valuing Volunteers: An Economic Evaluation of the

Net Benefits of Hospital Volunteers. Not-for-profit and Voluntary Sector

Quarterly, 33(1), 28-54.

FASB, 1990, Exposure Draft Accounting for Contributions Received and Contributions

Made. Norwalk, CT: Financial Accounting Standards Board.

FASB, 1993, SFAS 116 Accounting for Contributions Received and Contributions Made

Norwalk, CT: Financial Accounting Standards Board.

Gazley, B. and J.L. Brudney, 2005, Volunteer Involvement in Local Government after

September 11: The Continuing Question of Capacity Public Administration

Review, 65(2): 131-142.

23

IASB, 2008, Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting: The Objective of Financial

Reporting and Qualitative Characteristics of Decision-useful Financial Reporting

Information. Exposure Draft Paper from the IASB/FASB Conceptual Framework

Project.

IPSASB, 2006, IPSAS 23: Revenue from Non-Exchange Transactions (Taxes and

Transfers), New York: International Public Sector Accounting Standards Board.

Karn, G.N., 1982, Money Talks: A Guide to establishing the true dollar value of

volunteer time. Part 1. The Journal of Volunteer Administration, Winter: 1-17.

Karn, G.N., 1983, Money Talks: A Guide to establishing the true dollar value of

volunteer time. Part 2. The Journal of Volunteer Administration, Spring: 1-19.

Kilcullen, L., P. Hancock and H.Y. Izan, 2007, User requirements for not-for-profit

financial reporting: an international comparison. Australian Accounting Review,

17(1), 26-37.

Ministry of Social Development, 2008, Funding News, 8: December, Wellington: Family

and Community Services, Ministry of Youth Development, Child Youth and

Family.

Mook, L.B., J. Sousa, S. Elgie and J. Quarter, 2005, Accounting for the Value of

Volunteer Contributions. Not-for-profit Management and Leadership, 15(4), 401-

415.

Narraway, G. and C.J. Cordery, 2009, Volunteers, valuable but invisible to accountants?

Third Sector Review 9(1), 11-29.

NZFVWO, 2006, Counting for Something: Value added by voluntary agencies. The

VAVA project. Wellington: NZFVWO.

NZICA, 2007, Not-for-Profit Financial Reporting Guide. Wellington: Financial

Reporting Standards Board, New Zealand Institute of Chartered Accountants.

Pendlebury M., R. Jones and Y. Karbhari, 1994, Developments in the Accountability and

Financial Reporting Practices of Executive Agencies. Financial Accountability

and Management ,10(1), 33-46.

Putnam, R.D., 2000, Bowling Alone: The collapse and revival of American Community.

New York: Simon & Schuster.

Quarter, J., L. Mook, and B.J. Richmond, 2003, What Counts: Social Accounting and Co-

operatives. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Statistics New Zealand, 2007a, Non-profit Institutions Satellite Account : 2004. [Online]

Downloaded 1 May 2008 from: http://www.stats.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/

D51D35A8-24A7-46E6-AB48-F87EBA1A8893/0/Not-for-

profitinstitutionssatellite account2004WEB.pdf.

Statistics New Zealand, 2007b, Counting Non-profit Institutions in New Zealand: 2005.

[Online] Downloaded 1 May 2008 from: www.stats.govt.nz/products-and-

services/hot-off-thepress/ counting-non-profit-institutions-in-new-

zealand/countingnon-profit-institutions-in-nz-2005-hotp.htm.

24

Strategy Unit, 2002, Private Action, Public Benefit: A Review of Charities and the Wider

Not-for Profit Sector. London: United Kingdom Cabinet Office Strategy Unit.

Trigg, R. and F.K. Nabangi, 1995, Representation of the Financial Position of Not-for-

profit Organizations: the Habitat for Humanity Situation. Financial Accountability

and Management, 11(3), 259-269.

US Department of Labour, 2008, Volunteering in the United States, 2007. Washington

D.C.: Bureau of Labour Statistics

Wales Council for Voluntary Action, 2010, Submission to the Enterprise and Learning

Committee of the Welsh Parliament on the implementation of the Structural

Funds programmes in Wales 2007-2013. Downloaded from the internet from

http://www.assemblywales.org/bus-home/bus-committees/bus-committees-

scrutiny-committees/bus-committees-third-els-home/bus-committees-third-els-

agendas.htm?act=dis&id=170622&ds=4/2010.

Wilson, C., A.K. Hendricks and R. Smithies, 2001, “Lady Bountiful” and the “Virtual

Volunteers”: The Changing Face of Social Service Volunteering. Social Policy

Journal of New Zealand, 17, 124 – 146.

Wolff, N., B.A. Weisbrod and E.J. Bird, 1993, “The Supply of Volunteer Labour: the

Case of Hospitals”, Not-for-profit Management and Leadership, 4(1), 23-45.

25

Figure 1: Number of organisations according to sector

Sector This survey Statistics New

Zealand (2007b)

Counts % Number %

Culture, sports and recreation 52 24 43,220 44

Education/Research 35 16 7,400 8

Health 30 13 2,210 2

Emergency/Social Services 36 17 11,280 12

Environment 4 2 1,310 1

Community/Development/Housing /Employment & Training 36 17 7,580 8

Law/Justice 4 2 2,500 3

Grant making/fundraising and volunteerism promotion 5 2 610 1

International 300 0

Religion 8 3 9,890 10

Business and professional associations, unions 3,130 3

Government 4 2

Other 2 1

Don't know/not classified elsewhere 2 1 7,560 8

Total 218 100 97,000 100

26

Do you recognise donated hours in your annual report?

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

Dollar amounts for contributed services

are recognised in the annual report

Donated services are disclosed in our

annual report (hours or value)

Dollar amounts are assigned for

internal purposes only

No dollar amounts assigned

Don't know

FASB 1987 survey

NZ 2007 survey

Figure 2: Recognition and disclosure of volunteer time

Note: the Adams et al. (1989) survey asked about disclosure of the dollar amounts, not the hours. The New Zealand survey asked

about disclosure which would include hours and/or dollar amounts in the notes of the financial statements.

27

Figure 3: Why organisations do not value volunteer time (percentages of responses)

28

Figure 4: Comparison of survey responses for not including volunteer services in annual reports

Main reason cited Adams et al.

(1989) survey

ranking

New Zealand 2007 survey

ranking by percentage of

respondents citing reason

A The costs exceed the benefit or it is

too difficult

1 1

B Services would not be performed by

salaried personnel if contributed

services were not available

2 5

C Organisation does not control the

employment and duties of volunteers

3= 2

D Amount contributed is immaterial 3= 3

E Services are not an integral part of the

organisation’s effort

5 4