Insights into Financial Management Practices of Tahfiz Institutions (TI): A Selangor Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates the financial management practices of TI, which include processes such as planning and budgeting, collection, payment, recording, and reporting. The research was conducted on 58 TI located in Selangor. The participants involved in the study were personnel responsible for the financial matters of the TI, including management and administrative staff. In general, among the five criteria evaluated, the payment status of TI which included payment records with proper supporting documents and details, on time and segregation of duties throughout the payment process. demonstrated an excellent performance with an overall mean score exceeding 4.0 (on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the highest). Following payment, the performance rankings were collection, recording, reporting, planning, and budgeting. The weak performance in reporting, planning, and budgeting mirrors the situation observed and proven empitically in other non-profit organizations (NPOs) and small and medium enterprises (SMEs) literatures. These entities often lack expertise in these areas due to insufficient staff, the absence of guidelines, and lack of awareness regarding the importance of financial management components. While payment, collection, and recording represent the core operations of TI, deficiencies in these areas can adversely impact its day-to-day functioning. Nevertheless, all aspects of financial management (FM) are crucial for TI's sustainability and survival. By establishing sound FM practices, these TI can enhance their chances of maintaining quality standards and avoiding future financial shortfalls. TI as part of the NPO which resources depending on the donation from others really need a good FM to ensure their sustainability and their uninterrupted operation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".