Buenas prácticas de sostenibilidad financiera: El caso del desarrollo acelerado de las organizaciones no lucrativas coreanas

Why Do Universities Have Endowments?

This paper demonstrates how changes in untied, lump-sum government grants or income from unrestricted endowments will affect the behavior of charities operated by managers with strong philosophical or professional commitments. An increase in such funds will reduce the charity's accountability to private donors and lower its fund-raising activities. The grant will not be spent entirely on raising the quantity of output. Instead, it will permit the charity manager to reduce his or her dependence on the costly solicitation of donors who do not completely share the manager's preferences. In order to understand nonprofit charities one must recognize both their diversity and the independent role of their managers in furthering this diversity. We will miss much of their special character if we view them as mere conduits seeking faithfully to reify the wishes of their contributors.' In this paper I demonstrate how an increase or a fall in untied, lump-sum government grants or income from unrestricted endowments will affect the behavior of charities operated by managers with strong philosophical or professional commitments to some service mixes rather than others. An increase in such funds will reduce the charity's accountability to private donors and lower its fund-raising activities. The grant will not be spent entirely on raising

Are you ready for social entrepreneurship revolution? her book Social for 21st Century, Georgia Levenson Keohane provides a great insight into emergence of social business and entrepreneurship. Her work provides a clear-sighted analysis of many different dynamics at play as we test new models and solutions for global economic change. (Muhammad Yunus, 2006 Nobel Peace Laureate, author of Banker to Poor). Entrepreneurship and venture thinking don't reside only in Silicon Valley; they can be found in nonprofit sector, and they are changing social fabric of nations and cultures around world. Just how nonprofit sector has evolved into a powerful agent of social change is story expertly told by Georgia Levenson Keohane in Social for 21st Century. This is a hugely important book for those who want to understand nonprofit world and its evolving role. (Eliot Spitzer, former governor of York and host of Current TV's Viewpoint). A timely, comprehensive, and well-written perspective on one of most powerful, positive forces for social change in our world today. Keohane's book not only synthesizes her state-of-the-art knowledge of field, but brings new insight into impact investing, growing role of social capital markets, essentiality of valid performance measures, and blurring of lines between social, public, and private sectors. (William F. Meehan III, Raccoon Partners Lecturer in Management, Stanford Graduate School of Business and Director Emeritus, McKinsey and Company). Modern social entrepreneurship is transforming way we invest our money and change world. Within 10 years, investors will channel hundreds of billions of dollars to achieve positive social and environmental impact in housing, health, education, energy, and financial services across globe. While there are extraordinary financial and social gains to be made, many unanswered questions remain. What's best way to harness markets to promote social change? And what kinds of investments can we make across nonprofit, private, and public sectors to achieve a more shared prosperity? This book demystifies complex world of social entrepreneurship, providing all information you need to understand social investment and innovation, whether you're a private investor, policymaker, nonprofit manager, or passionate and engaged donor. In clear and straightforward language, former McKinsey executive Georgia Levenson Keohane charts development of what New York Times calls the emerging hybrid of philanthropy and private equity. In Social for 21st Century, a must-read for anyone interested in innovative solutions to social problems, Keohane: shows how social entrepreneurship has radically transformed nonprofit, private, and public sectors; explores promise of impact investing - what it really is and how it works; illuminates challenges of bringing billions of dollars in private capital to bear on social problems; identifies smart public policies that promote social innovation at local and national levels; and recommends specific investment opportunities you can act on now. With in-depth coverage of cutting-edge social programs and philanthropic initiatives, Social for 21st Century provides knowledge and tools you need to be a responsibly engaged investor and citizen in coming decades.

This article analyses the public persona of Jeremy Gilley, a documentary filmmaker, peace campaigner, and the founder of the organisation Peace One Day (POD). It begins by outlining how Gilley’s persona is presented in a manner which resonates with established archetypes of social campaigners, and how this creates POD’s legitimacy among grassroots organisations. I then describe a distinct, but not inconsistent, facet of Gilley’s persona which speaks specifically to entrepreneurs. The article outlines how Gilley’s individuality works to simultaneously address these overlapping audiences and argues that his persona can be read as an articulation of social entrepreneurship. Gilley represents an example of a public personality working to “crystallise issues and to normativise debates” (Marshall “Personifying” 370) concerning corporate involvement with non-profit organisations and the marketisation of the non-profit sector. Peace One Day (POD) is a UK-based non-profit organisation established in 1999 by actor-turned-documentary-filmmaker Jeremy Gilley. In the 1990s, while filming a documentary about global conflict, Gilley realised there was no internationally recognised day of ceasefire and non-violence. He created POD to found such a day and began lobbying the United Nations. In 2001, the 111th plenary meeting of the General Assembly passed a resolution which marked 21 September as the annual International Day of Peace (United Nations). Since 2001, POD has worked to create global awareness of Peace Day. By 2006, other NGOs began using the day to negotiate 24-hour ceasefires in various conflict zones, allowing them to carry out work in areas normally too dangerous to enter. For example, in 2007, the inoculation of 1.3 million Afghan children against polio was possible due to an agreement from the Taliban to allow safe passage to agencies working in the country during the day. This was repeated in subsequent years and, by 2009, 4.5 million children had been immunised (POD Part Three). While neither POD nor Gilley played a direct part in the polio vaccination programmes or specific ceasefires, his organisation acted as a catalyst for such endeavours and these initiatives would not have occurred without POD’s efforts.Gilley is not only the founder of POD, he is also the majority shareholder, key decision-maker, and predominant public spokesperson in this private, non-charitable, non-profit organisation (Frances 73). While POD’s celebrity supporters participate in press conferences, it is Gilley who does most to raise awareness. His public persona is inextricably linked with POD and is created through a range of presentational media with which he is engaged. These include social media content, regular blogposts on POD’s website, as well as appearances at a series of speaking events. Most significantly, Gilley establishes his public persona through a number of documentary films (Peace One Day; Day After; POD Part Three), which are shot largely from his perspective and narrated by his voiceover, and which depict POD’s key struggles and successes.The Peace Campaigner as an Activist and Entrepreneur In common with other non-profit organisations, POD relies on celebrities from the entertainment industries. It works with them in two key ways: raising the public profile of the organisation, and shaping the public persona of its founder by inviting comparisons of their perceived exceptionalness with his ostensible ordinariness. For example, Gilley’s documentaries depict various press conferences held by POD over a number of years. Those organised prior to POD recruiting celebrity spokespeople were “completely ignored by the media” whereas those held after celebrity backing from Jude Law and Angelina Jolie had been secured attracted considerable interest (Day After). Gilley explains his early difficulties in publicising his message by suggesting that he “was a nobody” (POD Part Three). This representation as a “nobody” or, more diplomatically, as “ordinary,” is a central component of Gilley’s persona. “Ordinariness” here means situating Gilley outside the political and entertainment elites and aligning him with more everyday suburban settings. This is done through a combination of the aesthetic qualities of his public presentation and his publically narrated back-story.Aesthetically speaking, Gilley presents his ordinariness through his casual attire and long hair. His appearance is similar to the campaigners, youth groups and school children he addresses, suggesting he is a representative of that demographic but also distancing him from political elites. The diplomats Gilley meets, such as those at the UN, wear the appropriate attire for their elite political setting: suits. In one key scene in the documentary Peace One Day, Gilley makes his first trip to the UN to meet Kofi Annan, UN General Secretary at the time, and appears at their doors clean cut and suitably dressed. He declares that his new appearance was designed to aid his credibility with the UN. Yet, at the same time, he makes explicit that he borrowed the suit from a friend and the tie from his grandfather and, prior to the meeting, it was decided, “the pony tail had to go.” Thus Gilley seeks the approval of both political elites and the ordinary public, and constructs a persona that speaks to both, though he aligns himself with the latter.Gilley’s back-story permeates his films and works to present his ordinariness. For example, POD has humble beginnings as an almost grassroots, family-run organisation, and Gilley depicts a campaign run on a shoestring from his mother’s spare bedroom in an ordinary suburban home. Although British Airways provided free flights from the organisation’s outset, Gilley shows his friends volunteering their time by organising fundraising events. POD’s modest beginnings are reflected in its founder, who confides about both his lack of formal education and lack of success as an actor (Day After). This “ordinariness” is constructed in opposition to the exceptional qualities of POD’s A-list celebrity backers—such as Angelina Jolie, who does enjoy success as an actor. This contrast is emphasised by inviting Jolie into Gilley’s everyday domestic setting and highlighting the icons of success she brings with her. For example, at his first meeting with Jolie, Gilley waits patiently for her and remarks about the expensive car which eventually arrives outside his house, denoting Jolie’s arrival. He notes in the voiceover to his The Day after Peace documentary, “this was unbelievable, Angelina Jolie sat on my sofa asking me what she could do, I couldn’t stop talking. I was so nervous.”Gilley promotes his ordinariness by using aesthetics and personal narrative. Evidence of how he struggled to realise his goals and the financial burdens he carried (Peace One Day) suggest that there is something authentic about Gilley’s vision for Peace Day. This also helps Gilley to align his public persona with common understandings of the political activist as a prophetic social visionary. POD is able to tap into the idea of the power of the individual as a force for change with references to Martin Luther King and Gandhi. Although Gilley makes no direct comparison between himself and these figures, blog entries such as “ten years ago, I had an idea; I dared to dream that I could galvanise the countries of the world to recognise an official day of ceasefire and nonviolence. Mad? Ambitious? Idealistic? All of the above” (Gilley “Dream”), invite comparisons with King’s “I Have a Dream” speech. This is further augmented by references to Gilley as an outsider to political establishments, such as the UN, which he is sure have “become cynical about the opportunity” they have to unite the world (BBC Interview).Interestingly, Gilley’s presentation as a pragmatic “change-maker” whose “passion is contagious” (Ahmad Fawzi, in POD Concert) also aligns him with a second figure: the entrepreneur. Where Gilley’s performances at school and community groups present his persona as an activist, his entrepreneur persona is presented through his performances at a series of business seminars. These seminars, entitled “Unleash Your Power of Influence,” are targeted towards young entrepreneurs and business-people very much consistent with the “creative class” demographic (Florida). The speakers, including Gilley, have all been successful in business (POD is a private company) and they offer to their audiences motivational presentations, and business advice. Although a semi-regular occurrence, it is the first two events held in July 2010 (Unleash 1) and November 2010 (Unleash 2) that are discussed here. Held in a luxury five-star London hotel, the events demonstrate a starkly different aspect of POD than that presented to community groups and schools, and the amateur grassroots ethic presented in Gilley’s documentary films—for example, tickets for Unleash 2 started at £69 and offered ‘goody bags’ for £95 (author’s observation of the event)—yet consistencies remain.Aesthetically speaking, Gilley’s appearance signifies a connection with these innovative, stereotypically young, founders of start-up companies and where Gilley is an outsider to political organisations; they are outsiders to business establishments. Further, many of these companies typically started, like POD, in a spare bedroom. The speakers at the Unleash events provide insights into their background which frequently demonstrate a rise from humble beginnings to business success, in the face of adversity, and as a result of innovation and perseverance. Gilley is not out of place in this environment and the modest beginnings of POD are relayed to his audience in a manner which bears a striking similarity to his for-profit counterparts.An analysis of Gilley’s presentations at these events demonstrates clear links between the dual aspects of Gilley’s public persona, the political economy of POD, and the underlying philoso

Much of the literature dealing with nonprofit organizations takes a generic look at the nonprofit sector that often leads to an incomplete understanding of the great diversity within the sector. In this pilot study, I use survey data to assess how nonprofit managers perceive their organization in relation to organizations in the nonprofit, private, and public sectors. Specifically, I explore how managers of nonprofit organizations in different subfields answer the questions, “How well do you believe individuals in the following organizations understand the challenges that your organization faces?” and “How much influence do the following individuals or organizations have over the way you manage your organization?” I found that the main differences in responses exist between organizations that are uniquely nonprofit (i.e., focused on community development and fundraising) and all other nonprofit organizations that have similar counterparts in the public or private sectors. I close the article by discussing the importance of these findings in relation to nonprofit education and leadership, as well as the benefits of conducting studies that include organizations in multiple subfields and across multiple sectors.

Non-profit sector organizations are focused on meeting their clients' needs in accordance with a clearly defined mission and set goals, without emphasizing profit. Non-profit organizations can efficiently distribute resources, maintain activities, and achieve their objectives by successfully managing their financial resources. This paper aims to highlight the need for and support more detailed research into the characteristics and models of financial resource management within the non-profit sector and its organizations, to achieve more effective management and efficient allocation of financial resources in this sector. Financial resource management is one of the most challenging areas primarily addressed by financial management. The focus of the paper is on understanding the characteristics and challenges of managing organizations that have social and/or humanitarian goals. Additionally, the goal is to emphasize the importance of applying good management practices, the need to create an adequate framework for the development of financial management in the non-profit sector, and the improvement of financial resource management models, all to enhance the quality-of-service delivery to users based on the analysis of the specificities of financial resource management.

THIS paper derives and tests some implications about differences in behavior resulting from differences in property right arrangements, and in particular, between proprietary for-profit and nonproprietary not-for-profit hospitals (hereafter referred to as proprietary and nonproprietary hospitals respectively) . The arrangements in nonproprietary nonprofit enterprises are different from those in proprietary profit-seeking organizations because (1) certain rights or claims to benefits in nonproprietary organizations are not transferable by sale as they are in proprietary organizations, and (2) managers or workers in nonprofit organizations do not have exclusive claim on residual products (the current flows of money and nonmoney benefits) that is characteristic of for-profit enterprises.

Public Administration ReviewVolume 68, Issue 3 p. 591-594 Governance Structures Matter, and We Must Maintain What We Construct: Considering the Role of Nonprofit Organizations in Public Policy Processes Max O. Stephenson Jr., Corresponding Author Max O. Stephenson Jr. Virginia Tech Institute for Policy and GovernanceMax O. Stephenson, Jr., currently serves as director of the Virginia Tech Institute for Policy and Governance. He has published in many leading academic journals, including Voluntas, Public Administration Review, Administrative Theory and Praxis, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, Nonprofit Management and Leadership, Urban Studies, Disasters, and Community Development Journal. He received his doctorate from the University of Virginia.E-mail: mstephen@vt.eduSearch for more papers by this author Max O. Stephenson Jr., Corresponding Author Max O. Stephenson Jr. Virginia Tech Institute for Policy and GovernanceMax O. Stephenson, Jr., currently serves as director of the Virginia Tech Institute for Policy and Governance. He has published in many leading academic journals, including Voluntas, Public Administration Review, Administrative Theory and Praxis, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, Nonprofit Management and Leadership, Urban Studies, Disasters, and Community Development Journal. He received his doctorate from the University of Virginia.E-mail: mstephen@vt.eduSearch for more papers by this author First published: 24 March 2008 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2008.00897.xRead the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Volume68, Issue3May|June 2008Pages 591-594 RelatedInformation

The increasing commercialization among non-profit organizations is shifting financial dependence from charitable donations to self-generated earned income through social entrepreneurial ventures. Little is known about the consequences of this shift. There is a lack of literature discussing how ventures into social entrepreneurship by non-profit organizations evolve and what effects they have on multiple dimensions of these organizations. To address this gap, the aim of this paper is to describe and analyse processes of commercialization of non-profit sector organizations and their effects on social-entrepreneurial NGOs in Cambodia. The data used in this study is based on a large-scale quantitative survey and qualitative key informant interviews with NGO leaders and administrators of NGOs in five regions across Cambodia. The authors found that the struggle for social and financial sustainability is one of the major motivations for organizations engaging in commercial ventures. Commercialization has transformative effects on the goals, motives, methods, income distribution, and governance component of NGOs in the sample. At the same time, however, commercialization tends to sideline the social mission of NGOs.

Learning outcomes The learning outcomes are to understand the definition of public value and the strategic drivers behind public value creation, understand the nature of social innovation in the public sector, identify the critical opportunities and challenges involved in sustaining innovation in the public sector and identify the role that non-profit organizations can play in supporting and sustaining social innovation. Case overview/synopsis This case puts participants in the shoes of a global health innovator’s leadership team as the organization approaches a funding crisis. The organization, VillageReach, is on a quest to expand across the public health system of Mozambique and experiences a funding dilemma. The case reveals the challenges of working with governments to achieve large-scale, systemic change. It explores the conundrum of using international donor funding to embed new practices in government service delivery. Ultimately, it asks participants to choose between the pursuit of new, small-scale innovative projects and the large-scale rollout of a national programme. Complexity academic level This teaching case is written for courses focused on social entrepreneurship, social innovation and social change. It can also be used in courses focused on non-profit management and public sector innovation. Specifically, the teaching case is suitable for two audiences: social enterprise and non-profit managers focused on strategy, development and operations (the case focuses on an enterprise that relies primarily on donor funding) and health-care managers and administrators. Generally, the case is suitable for undergraduates in their final year of study as well as graduate-level business and public administration courses, including MBA, MPH, MPA, EMBA and Executive Education courses. Supplementary materials Teaching Notes are available for educators only. Subject code CSS 3: Entrepreneurship.

Purpose– The purpose of this paper is to examine the factors that affect a person's choice to work in a specific sector to understand the overrepresentation of women in the nonprofit sector in the USA.Design/methodology/approach– This study views a sector choice of prime-age salaried workers as a three-way choice among for-profit, nonprofit, and public sectors. One's choice of employment sector in this study depends on extrinsic and intrinsic motivations, and is also shaped by structural factors. These benefits, in turn, tend to be determined by individual characteristics. Consequently, this study estimated the endogenous switching regression of earnings and sector choice.Findings– Results from 2003 to 2007 Current Population Survey (CPS) September supplement data indicate that the so-called “feminine” industries are concentrated in the nonprofit sector, and this gendered industry structure attributes to women's overrepresentation in the sector. The results also suggest that women with more education and experience may choose nonprofit jobs over jobs in the other sector while nonprofit employment is generally associated with negative wage differentials.Research limitations/implications– This study does not model employers’ behaviors while gender segregation and discriminatory hiring practices may have contributed to women's overrepresentation in the nonprofit sector due to the lack of employer-side information in CPS. Consequently, the estimation of sector choice without employer information is likely to suffer from an endogeneity problem.Practical implications– This study highlights the factors affecting the concentration of women in the nonprofit sector. Nonprofit organizations may use the information to better understand their employees.Social implications– The findings suggest that women's sector choice is largely embedded in the industry structure of the nonprofit sector.Originality/value– This study examines a sector choice of prime-age salaried workers as a three way choice, instead of a binary choice, among for-profit, nonprofit, and public sectors, which reflects the reality better. Further, this study contributes to the literature on nonprofit employment by testing the impact of nonprofit status on an individual's earnings. Lastly, this study contribute to understanding women's overrepresentation in the nonprofit sector by examining both the structural and utilitarian aspects of sector choice.

This article proposes a conceptual framework for re-examining NPO governance, especially focussing upon the roles and responsibilities of boards, executives, and other staff and volunteers. It draws from Talcott Parson's idea that all human organizations exhibit three distinct levels of responsibility and control – institutional, managerial, and technical/operational. Both academic scholarship and nonprofit organization practice are increasingly re-considering the structure and functions of governance and management within nonprofit organizations (NPOs). While it can be argued that the governance portion of the institutional level of functioning should be located with the volunteer board of directors, otherwise I suggest that the following factors affect the appropriate division of roles and responsibilities among board, executive, and other staff and volunteers within an NPO: 1)the size of the NPO's budget, staff, and board; 2) the number of active volunteers and the breadth of roles they perform: 3) the stage of the NPO's life cycle: 4) the level of trust/confidence between the chief executive and the board; 5) executive transition; 6) the presence of organizational crisis; and, 7) environmental factors, including fundamental change in funding sources and pressure toward merger or intense collaboration. Both academic scholarship and nonprofit organization (NPO) practice are increasingly re-examining the structure of governance and management within NPOs. The nonprofit research and practice communities are asserting that we fundamentally need to re-conceptualize how NPOs can best organize themselves to perform their governance, management, and leadership responsibilities. This has profound affects on our ability to address issues of NPO accountability. Why? Because an organization's ability to "answer to" or "give account of itself" to those who hold it answerable, requires that it can clearly locate where the authority and responsibility within that organization lies for doing so. In the theory and practice of NPOs, it is ultimately a governance and (possibly) executive responsibility to ensure an effective answering and accounting to its multiple stakeholders, including all types of funders, other external constituencies, and the public, at large. Therefore persuasive answers about how NPOs can be accountable require effective efforts to re-conceptualize how NPOs can best organize themselves to perform their governance and executive responsibilities. The latter is the challenge to which this article responds. This effort joins the growing chorus of concern about the prevailing prescriptive models of governance in the nonprofit literature and concomitant need to rethink our understanding of governance. A sample of this recent reconsideration includes several examinations of Carver's Policy Governance model, excellent reviews of the most significant directions in board research and their practical applications, and searches for new, more useful models of governance which apply more broadly across the full universe of NPOs and expand the range of NPO governance practices.[1a] Oliver, C. 1999. The Policy Governance Fieldbook: Practical Lessons, Tips, and Tools from the Experiences of Real-World Boards New York: Jossey-Bass Publishers. [Google Scholar], [1b] Renz, D. 1999. Adding a Few Pieces to the Puzzle: Some Practical Implications of Recent Governance Research. The New England Nonprofit Quarterly, 6(2): 7–15. [Google Scholar], [1c] Ryan, W.P. 1999. Is That All There Is? Searching for More Useful Governance Strategies Beyond the Board Room. The New England Nonprofit Quarterly, 6(2): 7–15. [Google Scholar] The latter represents the best known initiative currently underway to rethink the topic of NPO governance. In his article, "Is That All There Is?," William P. Ryan describes preliminary findings from the National Center for Nonprofit Boards' (NCNB) and Harvard University's Hauser Center for Nonprofit Organizations' joint project aimed at assessing the prospects and strategies for developing alternative governance. As Ryan states, "the inquiry assumes that board governance as we know it may work well for many organizations -- but that new or alternative governance strategies may work better for others."[2] Ryan. 8 Ibid [Google Scholar] He reports on NCNB's own questions which emerged from its strategic planning process: do we have a one-size-fits-all problem? Do the most prevalent models about governance adequately serve the diversity of organizations that comprise the nonprofit sector? Why aren't our views of governance changing along with the rapid changes in our environment, such as changes in funding streams, public policy, demographics, technology, etc., particularly as the nonprofit sector is so receptive in other ways to new organizational and management strategies? Ryan goes on to report that most of the respondents to the Hauser Center-NCNB study thus far "were eager for a fundamental reconsideration of our governance strategies, which they believe are flawed in design, not just in execution."[3] 11 Ibid [Google Scholar] In elaborating on the concern that "one size" of governance model does not "fit all" NPOs, he lists the following types of NPOs which are not well served by the prevalent models: grassroots organizations, all volunteer organizations, entrepreneurial organizations (i.e., NPOs which function like social-purpose businesses), interorganizational alliances (collaboratives and networks), and multiple corporate forms (i.e., NPOs which create holding companies that deliver services through a number of different operating entities, sometimes including for-profit subsidiaries). Moreover, both Ryan and David Renz emphasize dramatic changes in the environment surrounding NPOs which make the prevalent, conventional models of governance less relevant. Both highlight the increased role of government in outsourcing service delivery to nonprofits. In doing so, government agencies set more of the terms and conditions of service delivery, and NPO boards find themselves effectively losing control of their organization's mission.[4a] Ryan. 13 Ibid [Google Scholar], [4b] Renz. 16 Ibid [Google Scholar] Both speak of growing demands for entrepreneurship, including what is now called the "social venture partner" approach to funding NPOs, in which grant-makers sometimes play a hands-on role in the operation and management of NPOs and their boards. Renz especially highlights growing pressures on NPOs to "engage in what many consider to be the 'unnatural acts' of alliances and collaborations; and the much intensified focus on outcomes and accountabi lity."[5] Renz. 16 Ibid [Google Scholar] He asserts that these and other environmental changes mean that we still need to know more about topics such as "the appropriate mix of board roles and functions when nonprofits engage in entrepreneurial activity, alliances, partnerships, and collaborative ventures, … and extensive work for government."[6] 21 Ibid [Google Scholar] Renz's, Ryan's, and other authors' characterization of the reasons for which we need to rethink governance echoes this author's experience from over twenty years of serving as an executive of local and national nonprofit organizations, as a governing and advisory board member to numerous NPOs, and as a consultant and trainer to well over a hundred NPOs in the United States and internationally. These have been organizations of highly varied size, ethnic composition, field, and stage in their life cycle.

This study aims to analyze the development of research on fund or financial management in non-profit organizations using bibliometric analysis methods utilizing VOSviewer software. The data used is taken from scientific publications sourced from Google Scholar. The results of the analysis show that the topics of accountability and financial transparency in nonprofit organizations have become a trend and have been widely studied, while specific research on financial management and the need for implementing national defense accounting in mosque is is still rare. Thise research can provide insight to encourage further research related to the development of practices in mosque financial management based on national defense accounting principles. In addition, this study is expected to contribute to improving the financial management system in others non-profit sector.

The instability of todays economic climate calls for non-profit organizations to approach social problems in new and interesting ways, and Information and Communication Technologies may serve as an answer to this call. ICT Management in Non-Profit Organizations aims to explore the effective and comprehensive deployment of appropriate ICT strategies within the nonprofit sector. This innovative reference work will discuss how ICT enables the non-profit sector to achieve organizational efficiency, effectiveness, and, ultimately, self sufficiency, and will provide elected and appointed policymakers, managers, and planners in governments, public agencies, and nonprofit organizations with a comprehensive strategy for creating an ICT management agenda in the non-profit sector.

Reputation is a complex construct. Any one organization normally has several different reputations based on attributes and criteria of specific interest to different publics, constituencies, interest groups and/or stakeholders. Managers of nonprofit organizations need to think beyond how their organization is perceived by the general public and to be aware of the reputation their organization has among different key interest groups, how each of these reputations influences organizational performance and how each can be enhanced to improve performance. This paper extends the investigation of the importance of reputation to nonprofit organizations through an empirical study of the relationships between peer reputation and other nonprofit performance variables. It provides the first empirical evidence that an organization's reputation among managers of similar nonprofit organizations influences its success in attracting resources. It also provides empirical evidence that an organization's peer reputation is affected by other nonprofit performance factors, such as client satisfaction and effective governance. The scholarly and management implications of these findings are discussed.