Handbook of National Accounting Handbook on Non-Profit Institutions in the System of National Accounts United Nations ST/ESA/STAT/SER.F/91 Department of Economic and Social Affairs Statistics Division Studies in Methods Series F., No 91 Handbook of National Accounting Handbook on Non-Profit Institutions in the System of National Accounts United Nations New York 2003 NOTE Symbols of United Nations documents are composed of capital letters combined with figures The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries Where the designation “country or area” appears, it covers countries, territories or areas ST/ESA/STAT/SER.F/91 UNITED NATIONS PUBLICATION Sales No: E.03.XVII.9 ISBN 92-1-161461-9 Copyright © United Nations 2003 All rights reserved Printed in United Nations, New York Preface The Handbook on Non-Profit Institutions in the System of National Accounts recommends statistical standards and guidelines for the development of data on nonprofit institutions (NPIs) within the System of National Accounts, 1993 (1993 SNA) The framework, concepts and classifications are designed as an extension and clarification of those underlying the 1993 SNA The objective of developing NPI data is to improve and make available data on a sector that is growing in importance and that is often ignored or little developed as part of the economy-wide compilation of data on national accounts The Handbook was prepared in close collaboration between the Johns Hopkins University Center for Civil Society Studies and the Economic Statistics Branch of the United Nations Statistics Division Particular mention may be made of the contributions by Lester M Salamon, Regina List, S Wojciech Sokolowski and Helen Tice of the Johns Hopkins University Center for Civil Society Studies; Helmut K Anheier, formerly at the Johns Hopkins University and now at the Centre for Civil Society, London School of Economics and Political Science, University of London; and Cristina Hannig, Károly Kovács, Jan W van Tongeren, Vu Viet and Magdolna Csizmadia of the United Nations Statistics Division Throughout the development of the Handbook, guidance was provided by a consultative group, which met at United Nations Headquarters in New York on 13 and 14 April 1999, and June 2000 and 8and July 2001 Members of the consultative group included (in alphabetical order): Heidi Arboleda (Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific); Édith Archambault (France); Estrella V Domingo (Philippines); Lourdes Ferrán (Venezuela); Ezra Hadar (Israel); Anne Harrison (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)); Virginia Hodgkinson (United States); Youri Ivanov (Commonwealth of Independent States); Estelle James (World Bank); Dickson Mzumara (Economic Commission for Africa (ECA)); Brian Newson, Statistical Office of the European Communities (Eurostat); Réné Rakotobe (ECA); Leen Roosendaal (Netherlands); and the late Richard Ruggles (United States) Advice was offered by Guy Standing and Azfar Khan of the In Focus Programme on Socio-Economic Security, International Labour Organization A draft of the Handbook was tested in 11 countries that varied in their level of development.1 In many cases, the test built on current or previous work carried out in connection with the Johns Hopkins Comparative Non-Profit Sector Project and members of the network of local project associates often provided technical assistance to the In addition, at an early stage in the development of the Handbook, a small group of United States experts was convened to review a “worked example” based on United States administrative records data Members of that group included: Evelyn Brody (Chicago-Kent College of Law); Nadine Jalandoni (Independent Sector); Károly Kovács (United Nations Statistics Division); Linda Lampkin (National Center for Charitable Statistics); Wilson Levis (City University of New York); Charles McLean (Guidestar); Robert P Parker (United States Bureau of Economic Analysis); Russy Sumariwalla (Consultant); and Murray Weitzman (Consultant) iii statistical offices carrying out the test Teams carrying out the test met for orientation in The Hague on and November 2000 and joined members of the consultative group at its July 2001 meeting in New York Test countries and participants were: in Australia, David Bain and Sharon Bailey, Australian Bureau of Statistics; in Belgium, Sybille Mertens, University of Liège, with the contribution of the national accounts department of the National Bank of Belgium; in Canada, Catherine Bertrand, Sophie Joyal, Malika Hamdad, James Chowhan, Karen Ashman and Kim Longtin, Statistics Canada; in Israel, Ezra Hadar, Nava Brenner, Aharon Blech and Soli Peleg, Central Bureau of Statistics; in Italy, Stefania Cuicchio, Raffaele Malizia, Andrea Mancini, Allesandro Messina and Nereo Zamaro, Italian Institute of Statistics (ISTAT); in Mozambique, Saide Dade and Antonio Heber Lazo, Instituto Nacional de Estatistica and Jan van Tongeren, United Nations Statistics Division; in the Netherlands, Leen Roosendaal, P R H van der Neut and W van Nunspeet, Statistics Netherlands; in the Philippines, Estrella V Domingo, National Statistical Coordination Board, and Ledivina Cariño, University of the Philippines; in South Africa, Johan Prinsloo, Reserve Bank of South Africa, and Joe de Beer, Statistics South Africa; in Sweden, Ann-Marie Brathen, Torbjorn Israelsson, Christina Liwendahl and Birgitta Magnussson, Statistics Sweden and Filip Wijkstrom, Stockholm School of Economics; and in Thailand, Somjit Janyapong, Suchavadee Srsuwannakan and Pak Tongsom, National Economic and Social Development Board The United Nations Statistics Division also convened a meeting of SNA experts to review the draft Handbook at United Nations Headquarters from10 to 12 July 2001 Members of the Expert Group included: Catherine Bertrand (Canada); Estrella V Domingo (Philippines); Lourdes Ferrán (Venezuela); Ezra Hadar (Israel); Omar Mohammad Ali Hakouz (Jordan); Anne Harrison (OECD); Clifford Lewis (Trinidad and Tobago); Pablo Mandler (Argentina/Israel); Brian Newson (Eurostat); Réné Rakotobe (ECA); Kusmadi Saleh (Indonesia); and Kotb Salem (Egypt) Thanks to the involvement of the above-mentioned experts, advisers and test countries, as well as additional meetings and deliberations held by the Center for Civil Society Studies and the United Nations Statistics Division, it was possible to reflect in the concepts, classifications and tables of the Handbook the theoretical and practical expertise of many national accountants and other specialists from a variety of developed and developing countries The compilers of the Handbook wish to express their gratitude to all of the advisers and experts who assisted in the development of the recommendations summarized here As additional experience with the implementation of the present recommendations accumulates, updated recommendations may be issued We are also grateful for the financial support of the Andrew W Mellon Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the Atlantic Philanthropies and the International Labour Organization Special thanks are also due to Paul Dekker of the Social and Cultural Planning Office of the Netherlands for assistance in arranging the field test orientation meeting held in The Hague iv Contents Paragraph Preface…………………………………………………………………………………… List of abbreviations and acronyms………………………………….…………………… Page iii ix Chapter Introduction…………………………………………………………………… A B C D 1.1 1.10 1.12 1.19 1.21 8 E Background…………………………………………… Why this Handbook?………………………………… Approach……………………………………………… The 1993 SNA as a platform for developing a global information system on non-profit institutions………… Overview of the Handbook…………………………… Defining NPIs……… ……………….………………………………………… 12 A B C D E F 12 12 13 14 17 21 Introduction…………………………………………… Definition of NPIs in the 1993 SNA……………….… Sectoring of NPIs …………………………………… Need for a satellite account on NPIs………………… NPI satellite account working definition……………… Satellite account definition in practice………………… 2.1 2.3 2.7 2.9 2.13 2.21 Box B2.1 Working definition of the non-profit sector………………………… 18 Treatment of non-profit institutions in the 1993 SNA……………… Treatment of non-profit institutions in the NPI satellite account… 14 21 Classifying NPIs ……………………………………………………………… 26 A B 3.1 26 3.5 3.9 3.17 3.20 27 28 32 32 Figures F2.1 F2.2 Introduction…………………………………………… The International Classification of Non-Profit Organizations (ICNPO)……………………………… (i) Main features of ICNPO……………………… (ii) Modular approach……………………………… (iii) Boundaries and other implementation issues…… v Chapter Paragraph Page (continued) C Relation of ICNPO to the International Standard Industrial Classification of All Economic Activities, Revision 3, and the Classification of the Purposes of Non-Profit Institutions Serving Households………… 3.28 Suggestions for future development…………………… 3.32 34 34 ICNPO detailing of selected “catch-all” activity codes ICNPO: groups and subgroups………………………… Correlation of ICNPO and ISIC, Rev.3 headings…… Correlation of ICNPO and COPNI headings………… 29 31 36 39 Key variables and tables of the NPI satellite account………………………… 42 A B 4.1 4.5 4.6 4.26 42 43 45 48 4.40 50 4.50 4.51 4.51 52 53 53 4.54 4.75 4.78 54 57 58 4.78 58 4.88 62 4.89 62 D Tables T3.1 T3.2 T3.3 T3.4 C D E Introduction…………………………………………… Key variables for the analysis of NPIs………………… (i) Core monetary variables of the 1993 SNA…… (ii) Additional monetary variables specific to NPIs (iii) Core quantitative social and economic indicators of NPI structure, output and capacity………… (iv) Additional quantitative and qualitative extensions of the NPI satellite account………… NPI satellite account tables …………………………… (i) Overview……………………………………… (ii) General structure of the NPI satellite account tables…………………………………………… NPI satellite account process………………………… Accounting treatment for new monetary variables…… (i) Treatment of non-market services provided by market producers in the 1993 SNA…………… (ii) Treatment of imputed volunteer labour inputs for market NPIs serving business………………… (iii) Treatment of imputed volunteer labour inputs for a non-market NPI……………………………… Figures F4.1 Schematic representation of the NPI satellite account process…… vi 57 Chapter Paragraph (continued) Tables T4.1 T4.2 Key variables and measures for NPIs……………………………… Tables of the NPI satellite account in the full elaboration and in the short form…………………………………………………………… Production account of a market NPI, with sales less than total costs Production account of a market NPI, with sales greater than total costs………………………………………………………………… 61 Implementing the NPI satellite account: data sources……….………………… 64 A B 5.1 5.7 5.7 64 65 65 5.12 5.17 66 67 5.24 5.29 5.29 5.34 5.40 68 69 69 70 71 T4.3 T4.4 C Page Overview……………………………………………… Compilation of data on NPIs………………………… (i) Building a NPI statistical register……………… (ii) Finding NPIs in existing data sources and collection activities…………………………… (iii) Developing new data sources on NPIs………… (iv) Integration of new and existing data sources on NPIs…………………………………………… Special Topics………………………………………… (i) Calculating the value of volunteer labour inputs (ii) Capturing international flows of philanthropy… (iii) Capturing small and/or informal NPIs………… 43 58 60 Measuring NPI output………………………………………………………… 75 A B 6.1 6.11 6.11 6.14 6.17 6.20 6.23 6.24 6.26 75 77 77 78 78 81 82 83 83 6.28 6.31 6.33 84 85 85 6.35 86 Introduction…………………………………………… Physical indicators for specific fields………………… Group Culture and recreation……………………… Group Education and research…………………… Group Health……………………………………… Group Social services……………………………… Group Environment………………………………… Group Development and housing………………… Group Law, advocacy and politics………………… Group Philanthropic intermediaries and voluntarism promotion……………………………………………… Group International………………………………… Group 10 Religion………………………………….… Group 11 Business and professional associations, unions………………………………………………… vii Annexes Page A1 International Classification of Non-Profit Organizations: detailed table……… 93 A2 Tables of the NPI satellite account…………………………………………… 98 A3 A brief guide to the SNA for non-specialists………………………………… 132 A4 Glossary of SNA terms………………………………………………………… 146 A5 Useful tools…………………………………………………………………… 184 Appendices A5(i) A5(ii) A5(iii) Johns Hopkins Comparative Non-Profit Sector Project: key organizational survey module……………………………………… Johns Hopkins Project: optional organizational survey module…………………………………………………………… Johns Hopkins Project: key population survey module on giving and volunteering…………………………………………………… 187 193 199 Tables AT5.1 AT5.2 AT5.3.1 AT5.3.2 AT5.3.3 A6 Correlation of ICNPO and ANZSIC headings…………………… Correlation of ICNPO and NACE-Bel headings…………………… Philippines: list of databases on non-profit institutions…………… Philippines: Securities and Exchange Commission data items…… Philippines: Bureau of Internal Revenue data items……………… 213 215 218 222 225 Relation between the NPI satellite account and the 1993 SNA………………… 227 Figure AF6.1 A7 Treatment of NPIs in the NPI satellite account…………………… 231 Work in the non-profit sector: forms, patterns, methodologies (reproduction of a report to the International Labour Organization, May 2001; separate table of contents provided)……………………………………………………………… 238 viii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 1993 SNA ANZIC CCIS CEPA CIS COFOG COICOP COPNI COPP CPC DAC ECA EIN ESA ESCAP Eurostat FTE ICATUS ICNPO IEA ILO IMF IRS ISCED ISIC n.e.c NACE NAICS NIPA NPI NPISH OECD SIRENE SNA SSN UNESCO VAT System of National Accounts, 1993 Australia and New Zealand Industry Classification Cross-Classification by Industries and Institutional Sectors of Production Account Items Classification of Environmental Protection Activities Commonwealth of Independent States Classification of the Functions of Government Classification of Individual Consumption According to Purpose Classification of the Purposes of Non-Profit Institutions Serving Households Classification of the Outlays of Producers According to Purpose Central Product Classification Development Assistance Committee Economic Commission for Africa Employer identification number European System of Accounts Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific Statistical Office of the European Communities full-time equivalent employment International Classification of Activities for Time-Use Statistics International Classification of Nonprofit Organizations integrated economic accounts International Labour Organization International Monetary Fund United States Internal Revenue Service International Standard Classification of Education International Standard Industrial Classification of All Economic Activities not elsewhere classified General Industrial Classification of Economic Activities within the European Communities North American Industry Classification System national income and product account non-profit institution non-profit institutions serving households Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development Système de répertoire des entreprises et des établissements System of National Accounts Social Security Number United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization value added tax ix Table 2: Religious Organizations % within country or area Religious Organizations Country or area not mentioned France United Kingdom Germany Austria Italy Spain Portugal Netherlands Belgium Denmark Sweden Iceland Northern Ireland Ireland Estonia Latvia Lithuania Poland Czech Rep Slovakia Hungary Romania Bulgaria Croatia Greece Russian Federation Malta Luxembourg Slovenia Ukraine Belarus 96.5% 93.6% 95.9% 92.7% 93.3% 96.3% 96.3% 88.6% 93.9% 96.6% 77.3% 95.4% 91.4% 90.4% 97.2% 96.2% 96.5% 96.4% 97.0% 87.1% 94.7% 96.4% 98.2% 94.2% 93.9% 99.5% 86.9% 94.5% 95.5% 97.7% 95.9% 94.4% Total 302 mentioned 3.5% 6.4% 4.1% 7.3% 6.7% 3.7% 3.7% 11.4% 6.1% 3.4% 22.7% 4.6% 8.6% 9.6% 2.8% 3.8% 3.5% 3.6% 3.0% 12.9% 5.3% 3.6% 1.8% 5.8% 6.1% 5% 13.1% 5.5% 4.5% 2.3% 4.1% 5.6% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Table 3: Cultural Activities % within country or area Country or area Cultural Activities not mentioned mentioned France United Kingdom Germany Austria Italy Spain Portugal Netherlands Belgium Denmark Sweden Iceland Northern Ireland Ireland Estonia Latvia Lithuania Poland Czech Rep Slovakia Hungary Romania Bulgaria Croatia Greece Russian Federation Malta Luxembourg Slovenia Ukraine Belarus 94.9% 96.8% 97.2% 93.3% 94.0% 97.0% 97.3% 83.1% 90.6% 94.6% 88.4% 94.1% 97.5% 95.1% 94.2% 95.6% 97.4% 98.3% 93.8% 94.4% 96.8% 98.3% 97.2% 95.9% 86.2% 99.6% 96.2% 91.4% 93.3% 98.2% 98.0% 94.9% Total 303 5.1% 3.2% 2.8% 6.7% 6.1% 3.0% 2.7% 16.9% 9.4% 5.4% 11.6% 5.9% 2.5% 4.9% 5.8% 4.4% 2.6% 1.7% 6.2% 5.6% 3.2% 1.7% 2.8% 4.1% 13.8% 4% 3.8% 8.6% 6.7% 1.8% 2.0% 5.1% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Table 4: Trade Unions % within country or area Country or area Trade Unions not mentioned mentioned France United Kingdom Germany Austria Italy Spain Portugal Belgium Denmark Sweden Iceland Northern Ireland Ireland Estonia Latvia Lithuania Poland Czech Rep Slovakia Hungary Romania Bulgaria Croatia Greece Russian Federation Malta Luxembourg Slovenia Ukraine Belarus 98.6% 98.5% 99.6% 98.2% 97.8% 99.0% 99.7% 97.8% 96.1% 89.5% 96.9% 98.7% 98.3% 99.5% 97.7% 98.6% 97.6% 97.3% 94.1% 98.9% 94.2% 96.3% 95.8% 95.5% 96.5% 98.0% 97.1% 96.7% 96.2% 94.7% 97.2% Total 304 1.4% 1.5% 4% 1.8% 2.2% 1.0% 3% 2.2% 3.9% 10.5% 3.1% 1.3% 1.7% 5% 2.3% 1.4% 2.4% 2.7% 5.9% 1.1% 5.8% 3.7% 4.2% 4.5% 3.5% 2.0% 2.9% 3.3% 3.8% 5.3% 2.8% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Table 5: Political Parties % within country or area Political Parties Country or area not mentioned mentioned France United Kingdom Germany Austria Italy Spain Portugal Belgium Denmark Sweden Iceland Northern Ireland Ireland Estonia Latvia Lithuania Poland Czech Rep Slovakia Hungary Romania Bulgaria Croatia Greece Russian Federation Malta Luxembourg Slovenia Ukraine Belarus 99.3% 98.7% 98.9% 96.5% 97.7% 98.8% 99.0% 97.1% 97.3% 95.7% 96.6% 99.1% 98.0% 98.5% 99.1% 98.1% 99.4% 97.6% 94.9% 99.1% 98.2% 96.3% 98.0% 94.8% 99.7% 95.5% 97.5% 98.7% 98.8% 99.2% 97.9% Total 305 7% 1.3% 1.1% 3.5% 2.3% 1.3% 1.0% 2.9% 2.7% 4.3% 3.4% 9% 2.0% 1.5% 9% 1.9% 6% 2.4% 5.1% 9% 1.8% 3.7% 2.0% 5.2% 3% 4.5% 2.5% 1.3% 1.2% 8% 2.1% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Table 6: Local Community Action % within country or area Country or area Local Community Action not mentioned mentioned France United Kingdom Germany Austria Italy Spain Portugal Belgium Denmark Sweden Iceland Northern Ireland Ireland Estonia Latvia Lithuania Poland Czech Rep Slovakia Hungary Romania Bulgaria Croatia Greece Russian Federation Malta Luxembourg Slovenia Ukraine Belarus 98.3% 98.3% 99.7% 98.7% 98.3% 98.1% 98.9% 97.3% 96.9% 94.3% 99.3% 99.0% 96.6% 98.2% 98.3% 99.3% 98.7% 98.1% 93.2% 98.9% 99.4% 99.2% 99.3% 93.3% 99.4% 96.1% 97.2% 94.2% 99.0% 99.1% 97.9% Total 306 1.7% 1.7% 3% 1.3% 1.8% 1.9% 1.1% 2.7% 3.1% 5.7% 7% 1.0% 3.4% 1.8% 1.7% 7% 1.3% 1.9% 6.8% 1.1% 6% 8% 7% 6.7% 6% 3.9% 2.8% 5.8% 1.0% 9% 2.1% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Table 7: Third World Development and Human Rights Organizations % within country or area Third World Development and Human Rights Organizations Country or area not mentioned France United Kingdom Germany Austria Italy Spain Portugal Belgium Denmark Sweden Iceland Northern Ireland Ireland Estonia Latvia Lithuania Poland Czech Rep Slovakia Hungary Romania Bulgaria Croatia Greece Russian Federation Malta Luxembourg Slovenia Ukraine Belarus 99.4% 95.4% 99.9% 99.2% 98.1% 98.7% 99.2% 95.0% 98.8% 95.3% 98.7% 98.9% 98.0% 99.7% 99.7% 99.7% 99.8% 99.6% 99.8% 99.8% 99.6% 99.7% 99.6% 94.3% 100.0% 98.4% 95.0% 99.6% 99.8% 99.3% 98.6% Total 307 mentioned 6% 4.6% 1% 8% 1.9% 1.3% 8% 5.0% 1.2% 4.7% 1.3% 1.1% 2.0% 3% 3% 3% 2% 4% 2% 2% 4% 3% 4% 5.7% 0% 1.6% 5.0% 4% 2% 7% 1.4% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Table 8: Environmental Organizations % within country or area Environmental Organizations Country or area not mentioned France United Kingdom Germany Austria Italy Spain Portugal Belgium Denmark Sweden Iceland Northern Ireland Ireland Estonia Latvia Lithuania Poland Czech Rep Slovakia Hungary Romania Bulgaria Croatia Greece Russian Federation Malta Luxembourg Slovenia Ukraine Belarus 99.1% 92.4% 99.1% 97.7% 98.3% 99.0% 99.4% 96.7% 97.7% 95.9% 98.7% 99.4% 98.7% 98.8% 99.5% 99.4% 99.3% 97.0% 98.0% 98.1% 99.4% 98.5% 97.9% 90.5% 99.6% 98.1% 95.9% 97.1% 99.7% 97.8% 98.0% Total 308 mentioned 9% 7.6% 9% 2.3% 1.8% 1.0% 6% 3.3% 2.3% 4.1% 1.3% 6% 1.3% 1.2% 5% 6% 7% 3.0% 2.0% 1.9% 6% 1.5% 2.1% 9.5% 4% 1.9% 4.1% 2.9% 3% 2.2% 2.0% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Table 9: Professional Associations % within country or area Professional Associations Country or area not mentioned France United Kingdom Germany Austria Italy Spain Portugal Belgium Denmark Sweden Iceland Northern Ireland Ireland Estonia Latvia Lithuania Poland Czech Rep Slovakia Hungary Romania Bulgaria Croatia Greece Russian Federation Malta Luxembourg Slovenia Ukraine Belarus 98.5% 92.3% 99.5% 98.4% 96.8% 99.1% 99.1% 97.1% 96.2% 95.6% 97.0% 99.4% 96.9% 98.5% 99.5% 99.6% 98.8% 97.6% 97.0% 98.3% 99.0% 97.8% 97.7% 94.5% 99.6% 98.3% 98.5% 97.3% 99.4% 99.4% 98.0% Total 309 mentioned 1.5% 7.7% 5% 1.6% 3.2% 9% 9% 2.9% 3.8% 4.4% 3.0% 6% 3.1% 1.5% 5% 4% 1.2% 2.4% 3.0% 1.7% 1.0% 2.2% 2.3% 5.5% 4% 1.7% 1.5% 2.7% 6% 6% 2.0% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Table 10: Youth Work Organizations % within country or area Youth Work Organizations Country or area not mentioned France United Kingdom Germany Austria Italy Spain Portugal Belgium Denmark Sweden Iceland Northern Ireland Ireland Estonia Latvia Lithuana Poland Czech Rep Slovakia Hungary Romania Bulgaria Croatia Greece Russian Federation Malta Luxembourg Slovenia Ukraine Belarus 98.5% 84.7% 99.0% 98.1% 97.0% 98.3% 98.9% 95.7% 94.9% 94.9% 96.6% 97.3% 95.2% 97.9% 99.3% 98.8% 99.3% 94.3% 94.5% 98.8% 99.5% 98.6% 98.1% 95.4% 99.7% 96.9% 94.1% 96.5% 99.2% 99.1% 97.1% Total 310 mentioned 1.5% 15.3% 1.0% 1.9% 3.0% 1.7% 1.1% 4.3% 5.1% 5.1% 3.4% 2.7% 4.8% 2.1% 7% 1.2% 7% 5.7% 5.5% 1.2% 5% 1.4% 1.9% 4.6% 3% 3.1% 5.9% 3.5% 8% 9% 2.9% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Table 11: Sports and Recreational Organizations % within country or area Country or area France United Kingdom Germany Austria Italy Spain Portugal Belgium Denmark Sweden Iceland Northern Ireland Ireland Estonia Latvia Lithuana Poland Czech Rep Slovakia Hungary Romania Bulgaria Croatia Greece Russian Federation Malta Luxembourg Slovenia Ukraine Belarus Total Sports and Recreational Organizations not mentioned mentioned 90.9% 96.2% 94.4% 91.6% 93.8% 96.5% 95.0% 92.1% 85.6% 83.0% 88.6% 96.6% 87.2% 96.3% 93.8% 97.3% 97.8% 90.1% 86.6% 97.4% 98.8% 96.4% 93.0% 91.1% 98.8% 94.5% 90.7% 91.6% 99.3% 98.8% 93.5% 311 9.1% 3.8% 5.6% 8.4% 6.3% 3.5% 5.0% 7.9% 14.4% 17.0% 11.4% 3.4% 12.8% 3.7% 6.2% 2.7% 2.2% 9.9% 13.4% 2.6% 1.2% 3.6% 7.0% 8.9% 1.2% 5.5% 9.3% 8.4% 7% 1.2% 6.5% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Table 12: Women's Groups % within country or area Women's Groups Country or area not mentioned France United Kingdom Germany Austria Italy Spain Portugal Belgium Denmark Sweden Iceland Northern Ireland Ireland Estonia Latvia Lithuania Poland Czech Rep Slovakia Hungary Romania Bulgaria Croatia Greece Russian Federation Malta Luxembourg Slovenia Ukraine Belarus mentioned 99.9% 98.8% 98.2% 97.3% 99.6% 99.1% 99.9% 97.1% 99.2% 97.9% 97.7% 99.1% 97.2% 98.6% 99.7% 99.7% 99.5% 98.9% 95.3% 99.8% 99.7% 99.2% 98.6% 97.0% 99.7% 98.3% 97.7% 98.7% 99.6% 99.5% 98.7% Total 312 1% 1.2% 1.8% 2.7% 4% 9% 1% 2.9% 8% 2.1% 2.3% 9% 2.8% 1.4% 3% 3% 5% 1.1% 4.7% 2% 3% 8% 1.4% 3.0% 3% 1.7% 2.3% 1.3% 4% 5% 1.3% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Table 13: Peace Movements % within country or area Peace Movements Country or area not mentioned France United Kingdom Germany Austria Italy Spain Portugal Belgium Denmark Sweden Iceland Northern Ireland Ireland Estonia Latvia Lithuania Poland Czech Rep Slovakia Hungary Romania Bulgaria Croatia Greece Russian Federation Malta Luxembourg Slovenia Ukraine Belarus 99.8% 95.3% 100.0% 99.8% 99.1% 99.3% 99.7% 98.6% 99.6% 99.6% 99.9% 99.2% 99.2% 99.6% 99.9% 99.8% 99.9% 99.8% 99.8% 99.6% 100.0% 99.6% 99.2% 94.6% 100.0% 99.5% 98.6% 99.4% 100.0% 99.4% 99.3% Total 313 mentioned 2% 4.7% 0% 2% 9% 7% 3% 1.4% 4% 4% 1% 8% 8% 4% 1% 2% 1% 2% 2% 4% 4% 8% 5.4% 0% 5% 1.4% 6% 6% 7% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Table 14: Health Organizations % within country or area Health Organizations Country or area not mentioned mentioned France United Kingdom Germany Austria Italy Spain Portugal Netherlands Belgium Denmark Sweden Iceland Northern Ireland Ireland Estonia Latvia Lithuania Poland Czech Rep Slovakia Hungary Romania Bulgaria Croatia Greece Russian Federation Malta Luxembourg Slovenia Ukraine Belarus 98.4% 90.2% 98.9% 97.2% 97.1% 98.6% 99.0% 93.0% 95.8% 99.0% 97.3% 98.1% 97.0% 96.9% 99.3% 99.5% 99.5% 99.3% 97.0% 96.2% 98.7% 99.4% 99.1% 97.7% 94.6% 99.7% 98.3% 97.3% 97.9% 99.4% 98.3% 97.7% Total 314 1.6% 9.8% 1.1% 2.8% 2.9% 1.4% 1.0% 7.0% 4.2% 1.0% 2.7% 1.9% 3.0% 3.1% 7% 5% 5% 7% 3.0% 3.8% 1.3% 6% 9% 2.3% 5.4% 3% 1.7% 2.7% 2.1% 6% 1.7% 2.3% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Table 15: Other Groups % within country or area Country or area Other Groups not mentioned mentioned France Germany Austria Italy Spain Portugal Netherlands Belgium Denmark Sweden Iceland Northern Ireland Ireland Estonia Latvia Lithuania Poland Czech Rep Slovakia Hungary Romania Bulgaria Croatia Greece Russian Federation Malta Luxembourg Slovenia Ukraine Belarus 93.9% 97.6% 96.0% 98.5% 97.6% 97.4% 93.7% 92.4% 93.4% 89.6% 98.3% 95.7% 95.4% 97.0% 95.3% 97.3% 97.7% 95.1% 93.8% 98.0% 98.5% 98.4% 97.2% 95.5% 99.3% 98.1% 98.2% 94.1% 99.0% 98.8% 96.4% Total 315 6.1% 2.4% 4.0% 1.6% 2.4% 2.6% 6.3% 7.6% 6.6% 10.4% 1.7% 4.3% 4.6% 3.0% 4.7% 2.7% 2.3% 4.9% 6.2% 2.0% 1.5% 1.6% 2.8% 4.5% 7% 1.9% 1.8% 5.9% 1.0% 1.2% 3.6% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Table 16: Not a Volunteer in Any Organizations % within country or area Not a Volunteer Country or area France United Kingdom Germany Austria Italy Spain Portugal Belgium Denmark Sweden Iceland Ireland Estonia Latvia Lithuania Poland Czech Rep Slovakia Hungary Romania Bulgaria Croatia Greece Russian Federation Malta Luxembourg Slovenia Ukraine Belarus Total not mentioned 27.3% 35.7% 22.8% 31.6% 30.7% 17.6% 18.3% 41.9% 53.6% 56.1% 63.2% 33.6% 22.0% 27.0% 22.0% 100.0% 36.9% 64.9% 44.5% 100.0% 27.9% 26.5% 64.0% 8.3% 97.1% 52.8% 48.5% 46.4% 58.1% 39.7% 316 mentioned 72.7% 64.3% 77.2% 68.4% 69.3% 82.4% 81.7% 58.1% 46.4% 43.9% 36.8% 66.4% 78.0% 73.0% 78.0% 63.1% 35.1% 55.5% 72.1% 73.5% 36.0% 91.7% 2.9% 47.2% 51.5% 53.6% 41.9% 60.3% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% ... clarification of the existing SNA definition of a non- profit institution and of the broader nonprofit sector for use in the non- profit satellite account proposed in the present Handbook Against that... be included in the collection of all entities that fit the SNA definition of a non- profit institution 2.2 The present chapter reviews the basic definition of a non- profit institution offered in. .. feature of the common understanding of these organizations 2.14 Thus, for the purpose of the satellite account on non- profit institutions, we define the non- profit sector as consisting of (a)