Public Confidence in Charitable Nonprofits

O'Neill, M

doi:10.1177/0899764008326895

Cited by 63 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Based on a host of studies over twenty years, O'Neill (2009) showed that the public trusts NPOs. Thus, it is possible that many donors do not expect or even acknowledge that NPOs may be engaged in questionable behavior, and they therefore do not see a need for an objective rating.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nonprofit watchdogs: Do they serve the average donor?

Cnaan

Jones

Dickin³

et al. 2011

Nonprofit Mgmnt & Ldrshp

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nonprofit watchdog organizations-organizations devoted to rating the accountability and transparency of nonprofits-claimI N AN IDEAL world, all of the information necessary to compare nonprofits would be available to potential donors. If this were the case, the best nonprofits-those that produce the most public goods and that act the most effectively and ethically-would attract the most donations, and the rest would perish. However, comprehensive comparative information does not exist, and donors must accept the reality of information asymmetry. 1 In principle, a donor is capable of deciding between roughly 1.1 million 501(c)(3) NPOs, many of which are dedicated to dealing with similar issues (Brown, 2008). Most donors, however, do not possess or know how to access the information necessary to compare NPOs' ethics, efficacy, and so forth, and they therefore find it difficult to distinguish between organizations.Various watchdog organizations have emerged in response to this information asymmetry. In theory, these watchdog organizations allow potential donors to assess a nonprofit organization's level of accountability (broadly defined) and thus to make more educated decisions about where to donate money.Many nonprofit experts and textbooks praise the existence of these watchdog organizations because they supposedly help regulate the sector, particularly in the areas of monitoring fraudulent activity and the use of funds (Herman and Associates, 2005; Hewlett Foundation, 2008). However, an unresolved question lingers: Do donors actually use these watchdogs to decide which nonprofits to support? NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT & LEADERSHIP, vol. 21, no. 4, Summer 2011 © 2011 381Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/nml.20032 In this article we first review the literature on information asymmetry between donors and NPOs as well as literature that suggests that donors may not need information in order to make optimal donations. This review is followed by a set of research questions regarding the role of watchdog organizations in the nonprofit sector. We then describe our research methods and present findings that shed new light on this field of study. We conclude by discussing the implications of our findings. Need for Accountability and External RatingIn economic terms, a nonprofit organization is an "agent" and a donor is a "principal." Agents produce goods and services for principals, but principals cannot supervise this production and have to rely on agents' reports. As agents, NPOs tend to claim success, efficiency, and integrity, even when struggling with failure, waste, and corruption (Bennett and DiLorenzo, 1994;Murray, 2001). When the principals/donors are unaware of the fidelity of the nonprofit, they suffer from information asymmetry.Two sets of donors can reduce this information asymmetry themselves. First, very rich donors can demand control of NPOs and access to accounting in return for large donations. Second, those volunteering with an NPO can access information direc...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nonprofit watchdogs: Do they serve the average donor?

Cnaan

Jones

Dickin³

et al. 2011

Nonprofit Mgmnt & Ldrshp

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Within social psychology, emphasis has been placed on understanding the self‐reported motivations individuals provide as their reasons to donate (Crosson et al ., ; Piferi et al ., ; Smith and McSweeney, ). In the discipline of social work, emphasis has been placed on the public's confidence in charitable organizations to explain why people give (Edwards et al ., ; O'Neill, ; Weinbach, ). Since we do not ask whether individuals donate in principle, and they may well also donate to other organizations using traditional methods, we use only the latter explanation for our purposes.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding online donor behavior: the role of donor characteristics, perceptions of the internet, website and program, and influence from social networks

Shier

Handy

2012

J of Philanthropy and Mktg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Online donation platforms, albeit a recent phenomenon, are becoming more important for human service nonprofits, allowing them to reach a broader target population of donors at relatively little cost. In developing countries such as India, internet use is flourishing, and this has allowed fund‐raisers to reach a population hitherto difficult to reach. A cross‐sectional research design was utilized to survey donors of one online donation program in India (n = 479). This research was exploratory, investigating the factors that influence people's willingness to donate online, including the socio‐demographic characteristics of donors. Results show that gender, perception of the organization, and influence from others are variables that influence the likelihood of donating online. Further research and implications for human service nonprofits seeking to undertake online charitable campaigns are discussed. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

“…On the one hand, we expect that optimism bias may be unique to CR because of the generally sanguine view of CR initiatives and prosocial business ventures (Gardberg and Fombrun, 2006;Orlitzky, 2009;Orlitzky and Benjamin, 2001;Porter and Kramer, 2011). Consistent with this view, opinion research (O'Neill, 2009) shows that the American public has varying levels of confidence in different types of institutions (governments, large corporations, small businesses, nonprofits, etc. ), which suggests that variation in optimism may follow suit.…”

Section: Optimism and Optimism Biasmentioning

confidence: 93%

Optimism and Bias When Evaluating a Prosocial Initiative*

Child

Witesman

2019

Social Science Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective This study examines how people evaluate prosocial initiatives—in particular, whether they exhibit optimism bias when asked to consider the outcomes of a hypothetical initiative that is described to take place in the nonprofit, business, or government sector. It also assesses the conditions under which optimism bias is malleable. Methods We use a survey with an experimental component to compare subjects’ evaluations of a hypothetical initiative across a set of priming (positive prime, negative prime, no prime) and sector (nonprofit, government, business, social business) conditions. Results We find evidence that optimism bias is widespread, regardless of the sector in question. Subjects are only inclined to alter their assessments when provided with new information that is positive (in contrast to new information that is negative). Conclusion The findings offer qualified support for the blurring hypothesis, suggesting that sector may be losing its status as a defining characteristic of the organizational landscape.

show abstract

Public Confidence in Charitable Nonprofits

Cited by 63 publications

References 14 publications

Nonprofit watchdogs: Do they serve the average donor?

Nonprofit watchdogs: Do they serve the average donor?

Understanding online donor behavior: the role of donor characteristics, perceptions of the internet, website and program, and influence from social networks

Optimism and Bias When Evaluating a Prosocial Initiative*

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About