Adoption of Sarbanes-Oxley measures by nonprofit organizations: An empirical study

Accounting Horizons

Volumn 22, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 255-277

  Iyer, Venkataraman M ^a   Watkins, Ann L ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT GREENSBORO   (United States)

^b LAMAR UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 52649132901     PISSN: 08887993     EISSN: 15587975     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2308/acch.2008.22.3.255     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Anderson, S., and C. L. Kelley. 2006. Advising nonprofit organizations. The CPA Journal 76 (8): 20-26.
2. Beasley, M. S., and S. E. Salterio. 2001. The relationship between board characteristics and voluntary improvements in audit committee composition and experience. Contemporary Accounting Research 18 (Winter): 539-570.
3. BoardSource. 2003. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act and implications for nonprofit organizations. Available at: http://www.boardsource.arg/clientfiles/Sarbanes- Oxley.pdf.
4. Bradbury, M. E. 1990. The incentives for voluntary audit committee formation. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 9 (1): 19-36.
5. Broude, P. D. 2006. The impact of Sarbanes-Oxley on private & nonprofit companies. Foley and Lardner, LLP. Available at: http://www.foley.com/ publications/pub_detail.aspx?pubid=3511.
6. Coles, J. L., D. D. Naveen, and L. Naveen. 2008. Boards: Does one size fit all? Journal of Financial Economics 87 (2): 329-356.
7. D'Aquila, J. M. 2004. Tallying the cost of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. The CPA Journal 74 (11): 6-9.
8. Gibelman, M., S. Gelman, and D. Pollack. 1997. The credibility of nonprofit boards: A view from the 1990s and beyond. Administration in Social Work 21 (2): 21-39.
9. Grant Thornton LLPw 2006. Grant Thornton National Board governance survey for not-for-profit organizations. Available at: http://www.grantthorntoii.com/ staticfiles/GTCom/files/Industries/NotForProfit/nfp_board1.pdf.
10. GuideStar. 2005. Nonprofits, Sarbanes-Oxley, and the states. Available at: http://www.guidestar.org/DisplayArticle.do?articleId=779.
11. Hempel, J., and A. Bonus. 2004. Now the nonprofits need cleaning up; Cozy boardrooms at colleges and charities face increasing government scrutiny. BusinessWeek (June 21): 107.
12. Hymowitz, C. 2005. The Sarbanes-Oxley era, running a nonprofit is only getting harder. Wall Street Journal (June 21): B1.
13. O'Hare, P. 2002. Sarbanes-Oxley raises red flag for not-for-profits. Healthcare Financial Management 56 (10): 42-44.
14. O'Regan, K., and S. M. Oster. 2005. Does the structure and composition of the board matter? The case of nonprofit organizations. Journal of Law Economics and Organization 21 (1): 205-227.
15. Orlikoff, J., and M. Totten. 2004. Applying for-profit governance reforms. Healthcare Executive 19 (3): 52.
16. Panel on the Nonprofit Sector. 2005. Strengthening transparency, governance, and accountability of charitable organizations. Available at: http://www.nonprofitpanel.org/iinal/.
17. Pincus, K., M. Rusbarsky, and J. Wong. 1989. Voluntary formation of corporate audit committees among NASDAQ firms. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 8 (4): 239-265.
18. Pomeroy, A. 2006. Sarbanes-Oxley costs affect smaller companies the most. HRMagazine 51 (8): 14-16.
19. Silk, T., and R. Fei. 2005. California's Nonprofit Integrity Act of 2004 (SB 1262). The International Journal for Not-for-Profit Law 7 (2). Available at: http://www.icnl.org/JOURNAL/vol7iss2/ar_silk.htm.
20. Tran, P. 2005. A Sarbanes-Oxley Act for nonprofits? The Practical Lawyer 51 (5): 47-53.
21. U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Financial Services. 2002. Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. Public Law No. 107-204. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
22. Vermeer, T. E., K. Raghunandan, and D. A. Forgoine. 2006. The composition of nonprofit audit committees. Accounting Horizons 20 (1): 75-90.
23. Walters, R. 2003. You don't know what you've got till it's gone. Healthcare Financial Management 57 (3): 94-97.
24. Yermack, D. 1996. Higher market valuation of companies with a small board of directors. Journal of Financial Economics 40 (2): 185-212.