Self-Organisation Line Items Budget For 2018–2019

Sheet1wema Self Organisation Line Items Budget For 2018 2019expenses

Wema Self Organisation is a Christian relief, development, and advocacy organization committed to addressing poverty and promoting justice through community empowerment, education, and health initiatives. The organizational mission emphasizes human transformation, social justice, and the dissemination of the Christian gospel. Since its inception, Wema Self Organisation has prioritized assisting vulnerable populations, especially children, by providing basic needs and educational opportunities. This paper explores the budgeting process of Wema Self Organisation, focusing on its financial planning for 2018-2019, and discusses how different types of budgets can enhance organizational sustainability and impact.

Paper For Above instruction

Effective financial management is vital for non-governmental organizations (NGOs) such as Wema Self Organisation, which operates within the intersection of humanitarian aid and community development. A well-structured budget not only ensures resource allocation aligns with organizational goals but also enhances transparency, accountability, and strategic planning. Wema’s annual budget is US$300,000, which is allocated across various operational categories, including administrative expenses, project activities, and community outreach programs.

The detailed line-item budget prepared for 2018-2019 illustrates how organizations plan expenditures to meet their objectives. In this case, administrative expenses encompass salaries, rent, utilities, and supplies, totaling approximately $165,000. Specific allocations include salaries at $80,000, rent at $25,000, and supplies such as stationeries, seeds, and fertilizers. Community-oriented expenditures include aid distributions like beddings and food, as well as initiatives in education and livelihoods, such as training farmers and supporting street children.

Budgeting types relevant to NGOs like Wema include static budgets, zero-based budgets, and performance budgets. A static budget remains unchanged regardless of actual activity levels, which is useful in predictable scenarios but may limit flexibility during unforeseen circumstances. Zero-based budgeting requires managers to justify all expenses from zero annually, fostering accountability and resource efficiency—ideal for NGOs reliant on donor funding with strict accountability requirements (Bielefeld & Schneider, 2014). Performance budgets focus on linking resource input with specific outcomes, which can enhance program effectiveness and donor confidence (Banks, 2008).

Applying these budgeting approaches enables organizations to adapt to funding fluctuations, measure impact, and prioritize activities. For example, during periods of funding scarcity, zero-based budgeting can help identify essential programs and eliminate redundant activities. Conversely, performance budgets can better demonstrate the impact of funds, such as the number of children educated or farmers trained, which supports transparency with stakeholders and donors (Penning, 2012).

In addition to the technical aspects, the benefits of meticulous budgeting include improved financial control, goal alignment, and enhanced organizational sustainability. For NGOs like Wema, which rely heavily on donor contributions and volunteer support, transparent budgeting practices reinforce trust and foster ongoing partnerships. Moreover, integrating community needs and feedback into budgeting processes promotes responsiveness and relevance of programs, ensuring funds address pressing issues such as water sanitation and healthcare access.

In conclusion, a strategic approach to budgeting—employing suitable models and continuously monitoring expenditures—can significantly enhance Wema Self Organisation’s capacity to fulfill its mission effectively. Emphasizing transparency and impact measurement through performance budgeting, alongside flexible and justified expense planning, will enable the organization to navigate financial challenges while maximizing its service delivery to vulnerable communities.

References

• Banks, A. (2008). Budgeting. McGraw-Hill PAVE.
• Bielefeld, B., & Schneider, R. (2014). Budgeting. Basel: Birkhäuser.
• Penning, A. (2012). Budgeting. Osborne.
• Hansen, P. (2011). The role of budgeting in non-profit organizations. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 23(3), 258-278.
• Williams, O., & Samuels, K. (2019). Financial management for NGOs: Strategies for effective budgeting. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 29(2), 199-215.
• Schmidt, J., & Boggs, D. (2017). Performance budgeting and accountability in charitable organizations. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, 29(4), 542-560.
• Guthrie, J., & Parker, L. (2014). The importance of transparency in NGO financial practices. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 19(4), 254-263.
• Craig, S. (2018). Strategic financial planning in community organizations. Community Development Journal, 53(1), 107-125.
• United Nations Development Programme. (2015). Resource mobilization and budgeting for NGOs. UNDP Reports.
• World Bank. (2020). Best practices in NGO financial management. World Bank Publications.