United Nations Satellite Account on Non-profit and Related Institutions and Volunteer Work
The full text of the UN Satellite Account on Nonprofit and Related Institutions and Volunteer Work, developed by the Johns Hopkins Center for Civil Society Studies in cooperation with the United Nations Statistical Division and an international team of statistical experts. This handbook updates and expands the 2002 UN Handbook on Nonprofit Institutions in the System of National Accounts to embrace the larger “Third Sector,” including nonprofit, social economy, and civil society institutions, as well as volunteer work. It calls on national statistical offices to prepare regular “satellite accounts” on this set of institutions and activities and provides a standard set of guidelines for doing so as part of existing official economic data-gathering and reporting. Published in August 2018 by the United Nations Statistics Division.
The article presents a comparative analysis of the internal structure and principles of the organization of volunteer associations in Russia and France from the perspective of the sociology of organizations. The theoretical framework of the study combines the concepts of the neo-institutionalist approach in economic sociology and the network approach to organizations. Data are drawn from a series of in-depth expert interviews with the leaders of socially-oriented volunteer organizations in France and Russia (14 interviews). The author also conducted analysis of legal documents and communication materials of volunteer associations in each of the countries studied (approximately 40 documents totaling over 200 pages of text). It appears that the Russian and French volunteer sectors differ not only in structure and legal status of voluntary organizations, but also in the conceptual definition of volunteering. Drawing on empirical data, it was found that the French volunteer associations exist in a structured institutional environment, while Russian voluntary associations perform in a poorly structured, constantly changing environment, the main problem of which is the lack of cognitive and socio-political legitimacy. Thus, the French model of volunteering is more similar to the mechanism of institutional organizations, while Russian voluntary associations are more typical of networked organizations. This research suggests a different vision of the nature of voluntary organizations and argues that it is impossible to ignore national characteristics in the development of social policy. Conclusions drawn from this research could be applied to the development of public policy regarding the non-profit sector in Russia.
Volunteer administrators and their host organizations need to be concerned about evaluating volunteer programs to satisfy the information needs of various constituencies. These constituencies or so-called “stakeholders” are persons or groups who have a stake in, or a claim on, the program, whether perceived or actual. For example, one of the most prominent stakeholders, funders are no longer content merely with an organization having volunteers onboard but wish to know the results or “outcomes” or even the long-term “impact” of their involvement. Another important set of stakeholders, board members are interested in whether all organizational resources, including volunteers, have been put to good, if not “best,” use. Similarly, a third stakeholder group, organizational leadership, is eager to derive the most benefit from the volunteer program. For their part, volunteers may derive motivation from learning about the value of their efforts and the results they help to bring about for organizations and their clients. Satisfying all of these stakeholders through the same evaluation of the volunteer program is not easy, and perhaps not even feasible. Accordingly, in this chapter we present an evaluation framework for assisting the volunteer resource manager with understanding and conducting different types of evaluation based on stakeholder involvement.
In September, 2015, the UN General Assembly established the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The SDGs specify 17 universal goals, 169 targets, and 230 indicators leading up to 2030. We provide an analysis of 33 health-related SDG indicators based on the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2015 (GBD 2015).
We applied statistical methods to systematically compiled data to estimate the performance of 33 health-related SDG indicators for 188 countries from 1990 to 2015. We rescaled each indicator on a scale from 0 (worst observed value between 1990 and 2015) to 100 (best observed). Indices representing all 33 health-related SDG indicators (health-related SDG index), health-related SDG indicators included in the Millennium Development Goals (MDG index), and health-related indicators not included in the MDGs (non-MDG index) were computed as the geometric mean of the rescaled indicators by SDG target. We used spline regressions to examine the relations between the Socio-demographic Index (SDI, a summary measure based on average income per person, educational attainment, and total fertility rate) and each of the health-related SDG indicators and indices.
In 2015, the median health-related SDG index was 59∙3 (95% uncertainty interval 56∙8–61∙8) and varied widely by country, ranging from 85∙5 (84∙2–86∙5) in Iceland to 20∙4 (15∙4–24∙9) in Central African Republic. SDI was a good predictor of the health-related SDG index (r²=0∙88) and the MDG index (r²=0∙92), whereas the non-MDG index had a weaker relation with SDI (r²=0∙79). Between 2000 and 2015, the health-related SDG index improved by a median of 7∙9 (IQR 5∙0–10∙4), and gains on the MDG index (a median change of 10∙0 [6∙7–13∙1]) exceeded that of the non-MDG index (a median change of 5∙5 [2∙1–8∙9]). Since 2000, pronounced progress occurred for indicators such as met need with modern contraception, under-5 mortality, and neonatal mortality, as well as the indicator for universal health coverage tracer interventions. Moderate improvements were found for indicators such as HIV and tuberculosis incidence, minimal changes for hepatitis B incidence took place, and childhood overweight considerably worsened.Interpretation
GBD provides an independent, comparable avenue for monitoring progress towards the health-related SDGs. Our analysis not only highlights the importance of income, education, and fertility as drivers of health improvement but also emphasises that investments in these areas alone will not be sufficient.
Although considerable progress on the health-related MDG indicators has been made, these gains will need to be sustained and, in many cases, accelerated to achieve the ambitious SDG targets. The minimal improvement in or worsening of health-related indicators beyond the MDGs highlight the need for additional resources to effectively address the expanded scope of the health-related SDGs
The article suggests to adopt a pluralism methodological approach in marketing science. Using controversy over marketing to nonmarketers problem paper traces evolution of the issue in context of research methodology and discusses alternative methodological approaches and research paradigms.
We address the external effects on public sector efficiency measures acquired using Data Envelopment Analysis. We use the health care system in Russian regions in 2011 to evaluate modern approaches to accounting for external effects. We propose a promising method of correcting DEA efficiency measures. Despite the multiple advantages DEA offers, the usage of this approach carries with it a number of methodological difficulties. Accounting for multiple factors of efficiency calls for more complex methods, among which the most promising are DMU clustering and calculating local production possibility frontiers. Using regression models for estimate correction requires further study due to possible systematic errors during estimation. A mixture of data correction and DMU clustering together with multi-stage DEA seems most promising at the moment. Analyzing several stages of transforming society’s resources into social welfare will allow for picking out the weak points in a state agency’s work.