Prior research indicates that donors consider nonprofit organizations' historic fundraising ratios when making donation decisions. Theoretically, however, historic ratios are only pertinent to the donor's decision when they proxy for the organization's future marginal spending performance. In general, theory predicts average historic ratios will differ from future marginal ratios. Examining three large data sets, I find results consistent with theory. Incremental responses of donations to increases in fundraising expense are highly variable and poorly correlated with the average relations in a base year. While the cross-sectional response of donations to fundraising expense is generally linear over the relevant range, and average ratios are highly correlated between years, the low correlation of incremental to average ratios reduces the decision-usefulness of accounting data as currently provided.
AAFRC Trust for Philanthropy. 2004. Giving USA 2004.Glenview, IL: American Association of Fund-Raising Counsel.
2.
AICPA. 1994. Audit and Accounting Guide, Audits of Certain Nonprofit Organizations.New York: American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.
3.
AICPA. 1998. Statement of Position No. 98-2. Accounting for Costs of Activities of Not-For-Profit Organizations and State and Local Entities that include Fund-Raising.New York: American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.
4.
AICPA2002AICPA Audit and Accounting Guide, Not-for-Profit Organizations.New York: American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.
5.
Association of Fundraising Professionals, Association of Direct Response Fundraising Counsel, Council for Advancement and Support of Education, the Direct Marketing Association and the Direct Marketing Association's Nonprofit Federation, Direct Marketing Association of Washington, Direct Marketing Fundraisers' Association, National Catholic Development Conference, and National Health Council in Support of Respondents. 2003. Case of Ryan v. Telemarketing Associates, Inc. et al., United States Supreme Court, No. 01-1806, May.
Council of Better Business Bureaus, Inc. and the BBB Wise Giving Alliance. 2003. Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Petitioner in the Supreme Court Case of Ryan v. Telemarketing Associates, Inc., No. 01-1806.
8.
FASB. 1980. Statement of Accounting Concepts No. 4, Objectives of Financial Reporting by Nonbusiness Organizations.Stamford, CT: Financial Accounting Standards Board.
9.
FASB. 1993a. Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 116, Accounting for Contributions Received and Contributions Made.Stamford, CT: Financial Accounting Standards Board.
10.
FASB. 1993b. Statement of Financial Accounting Standard No. 117, Financial Statements of Not-For-Profit Organizations.Stamford, CT: Financial Accounting Standards Board.
11.
FroehlichK.A.KnoepfleT.W.. 1996. “Internal Revenue Service 990 Data: Fact or Fiction?”Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 25(1) (March): 40–52.
12.
GreenleeJ.S.GordonT.P.. 1998. “The Impact of Professional Solicitors on Fund-Raising in Charitable Organizations”. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 27 (3): 277–299.
HanssensD.M.ParsonsL.J.SchultzR.L.. 1992. Market Response Models: Econometric and Time Series Analysis.Boston: Kluwer Academic.
15.
LittleJ.D.C.1979. “Aggregate Advertising Models: The State of the Art”. Operations Research, 27(3) (July-August): 629–665.
16.
National Health Council. 1964. Standards of Accounting and Financial Reporting for Voluntary Health and Welfare Organizations.New York: National Health Council.
17.
New York State Department of Law. 2004. Pennies for Charity, 2004. Albany, NY: New York State Department of Law.
18.
OktenC.WeisbrodB.A.. 2000. “Determinants of Donations in Private Nonprofit Markets”. Journal of Public Economics, 75 (February): 255–272.
19.
PosnettJ.SandlerT.. 1989. “Demand for Charity Donations in Private Non-Profit Markets: The case of the U.K”. Journal of Public Economics, 40 (November): 187–200.
20.
Public Citizen, Inc., American Charities for Reasonable Fundraising Regulations, Inc. and 174 Other Nonprofit Organizations. 2003. Amici Curiae Brief in Support of Respondents. Case of Ryan v. Telemarketing Associates, Inc. et al., Supreme Court of the United States, No. 01-1806.
21.
SimonJ.L.ArndtJ.. 1980. “The Shape of the Advertising Response Function”. Journal of Advertising Research, 20(4) (August): 11–28.
22.
SteinbergR.1983. Two Essays on the Nonprofit Sector. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
23.
SteinbergR.1986a. “Should Donors Care About Fundraising?” In The Economics of Nonprofit Organizations—Studies in Structure and Policy. Edited by Rose-AckermanS., 346–364. New York: Oxford University.
24.
SteinbergR.1986b. “The Revealed Objective Functions of Nonprofit Firms”. Rand Journal of Economics, 17(4) (Winter): 508–526.
25.
SteinbergR.1988-89. “Economic Perspectives on Regulation of Charitable Solicitation”. Case Western Reserve Law Review, 39 (Winter): 775–797.
26.
TinkelmanD.1999. “Factors Affecting the Relation Between Donations to Not-For-Profit Organizations and an Efficiency Ratio”. Research in Government and Nonprofit Accounting, 10: 135–161.
27.
TinkelmanD.2004. “Using Non-Profit Organization-Level Financial Data to Infer Managers' Fund-Raising Strategies”. Journal of Public Economics, 88 (August): 181–292.
28.
WeisbrodB.A.DominguezN.D.. 1986. “Demand for Collective Goods in Private Markets: Can Fundraising Expenditures Help Overcome Free-Rider Behavior?”Journal of Public Economics, 30 (June): 83–96.
