Benford’s Law asserts that the leading digit 1 appears more frequently than 9 in natural data. It has been widely used in forensic accounting and auditing to detect potential fraud, but its application to nonprofit data is limited. As the first academic study that applies Benford’s Law to U.S. nonprofit data (Form 990), we assess its usefulness in prioritizing suspicious filings for further investigation. We find close conformity with Benford’s Law for the whole sample, but at the individual organizational level, 34% of the organizations do not conform. Deviations from Benford’s law are smaller for organizations that are more professional, that report positive fundraising and administration expenses, and that face stronger funder oversight. We suggest improved statistical methods and experiment with a new measure of the extent of deviation from Benford’s Law that has promise as a more discriminating screening metric.
AmiramD.BozanicZ.RouenE. (2015). Financial statement errors: Evidence from the distributional properties of financial statement numbers. Review of Accounting Studies, 20, 1540-1593.
2.
ArchambaultJ. J.ArchambaultM. E. (2011). Earnings management among firms during the Pre-SEC era: A Benford’s Law analysis. Accounting Historians Journal, 38, 145-170.
3.
BaberW. R.DanielP. L.RobertsA. A. (2002). Compensation to managers of charitable organizations: An empirical study of the role of accounting measures of program activities. The Accounting Review, 77, 679-693.
4.
BarneyB. J.SchulzkeK. S. (2016). Moderating “cry wolf” events with excess MAD in Benford’s Law research and practice. Journal of Forensic Accounting Research, 1, A66-A90.
5.
BenfordF. (1938). The law of anomalous numbers. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 78, 551-572.
6.
BoyleJ. (1994). An application of Fourier series to the most significant digit problem. The American Mathematical Monthly, 101, 879-886.
7.
BurksJ. J. (2015). Accounting errors in nonprofit organizations. Accounting Horizons, 29, 341-361.
8.
BurnsB. (2009). Sensitivity to statistical regularities: People (largely) follow Benford’s Law. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 31, (31).
9.
CalabreseT. (2011). Public mandates, market monitoring, and nonprofit financial disclosures. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 30, 71-88.
10.
ChangC. F.TuckmanH. P.Chikoto-SchultzG. L. (2018). Income diversity and nonprofit financial health. In SeamanB. A.YoungD. R. (Eds.), Handbook of research on nonprofit economics and management (2nd ed.). Northampton, UK: Edward Elgar.
11.
DangC. T.BurgerR.OwensT. (2019). Better performing NGOs do report more accurately: Evidence from investigating Ugandan NGO financial accounts. Economic Development and Cultural Change. Retrieved from https://ideas.repec.org/p/not/notcre/17-10.html
12.
DangC. T.OwensT. (2019). Does transparency come at the cost of charitable services? Evidence from investigating British charities (CREDIT Working Paper No. 2019-02).Nottingham, UK: University of Nottingham.
13.
DiekmannA. (2007). Not the first digit! Using Benford’s Law to detect fraudulent scientific data. Journal of Applied Statistics, 34, 321-329.
14.
DrakeP. D.NigriniM. J. (2000). Computer assisted analytical procedures using Benford’s Law. Journal of Accounting Education, 18, 127-146.
15.
DurtschiC.HillisonW.PaciniC. (2004). The effective use of Benford’s Law to assist in detecting fraud in accounting data. Journal of Forensic Accounting, 5, 17-34.
16.
FroelichK. A.KnoepfleT. W. (1996). Internal revenue service 990 data: Fact or fiction?Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 25, 40-52.
17.
FroelichK. A.KnoepfleT. W.PollakT. H. (2000). Financial measures in nonprofit organization research: Comparing IRS 990 return and audited financial statement data. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29, 232-254.
18.
GarvenS. A.HofmannM. A.McSwainD. N. (2016). Playing the numbers game. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 26, 401-416.
19.
GauvritN.HouillonJ.-C.DelahayeJ.-P. (2017). Generalized Benford’s Law as a lie detector. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 13, 121-127.
20.
GregoryA.HowardD. (2009). The nonprofit starvation cycle. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 7, 49-53.
21.
HansmannH. (1996). The changing roles of public, private, and nonprofit enterprise in education, health care, and other human services. In FuchsV. R. (Ed.), Individual and social responsibility: Child care, education, medical care, and long-term care in America (pp. 245-276). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
22.
HenselmannK.DitterD.ScherrE. (2015). Irregularities in accounting numbers and earnings management—A novel approach based on SEC XBRL filings. Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting, 12, 117-151.
23.
HillT. P. (1995). A statistical derivation of the significant-digit law. Statistical Science, 10, 354-363.
24.
Internal Revenue Service. (2017). Instructions for form 990 return of organization exempt from income tax. Retrieved from https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i990.pdf
25.
JoenssenD. W. (2015). Benford tests: Statistical tests for evaluating conformity to Benford’s Law. Retrieved from https://rdrr.io/cran/BenfordTests/
26.
JonesC. L.RobertsA. A. (2006). Management of financial information in charitable organizations: The case of joint-cost allocations. The Accounting Review, 81, 159-178.
27.
KeatingE. K.FrumkinP. (2003). Reengineering nonprofit financial accountability: Toward a more reliable foundation for regulation. Public Administration Review, 63, 3-15.
28.
KeatingE. K.ParsonsL. M.RobertsA. A. (2008). Misreporting fundraising: How do nonprofit organizations account for telemarketing campaigns?The Accounting Review, 83, 417-446.
29.
KrishnanR.YetmanM. H. (2011). Institutional drivers of reporting decisions in nonprofit hospitals. Journal of Accounting Research, 49, 1001-1039.
30.
KrishnanR.YetmanM. H.YetmanR. J. (2006). Expense misreporting in nonprofit organizations. The Accounting Review, 81, 399-420.
31.
LecyJ.SearingE. (2015). Anatomy of the nonprofit starvation cycle: An analysis of falling overhead ratios in the nonprofit sector. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 44, 539-563.
NewcombS. (1881). Note on the frequency of use of the different digits in natural numbers. American Journal of Mathematics, 4, 39-40.
35.
NigriniM. J. (1999). I’ve got your number: How a mathematical phenomenon can help CPAs uncover fraud and other Irregularities. AICPA Journal of Accountancy Online Journal, 5, 79-83.
36.
NigriniM. J. (2011). Forensic analytics: Methods and techniques for forensic accounting investigations (Vol. 558). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
37.
NigriniM. J. (2012). Benford’s Law: Applications for forensic accounting, auditing and fraud detection (Vol. 586). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
38.
NigriniM. J. (2016). The implications of the similarity between fraud numbers and the numbers in financial accounting textbooks and test banks. Journal of Forensic Accounting Research, 11, A1-A26.
39.
OmerT. C.YetmanR. J. (2003). Near zero taxable income reporting by nonprofit organizations. Journal of the American Taxation Association, 25, 19-34.
40.
OmerT. C.YetmanR. J. (2007). Tax misreporting and avoidance by nonprofit organizations. Journal of the American Taxation Association, 29, 61-86.
41.
SchräplerJ. (2011). Benford’s Law as an instrument for fraud detection in surveys using the data of the Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP). Journal of Economics and Statistics, 231, 685-718.
42.
SteinbergR. (2010). Principal-agent theory and nonprofit accountability. In HoptK. J.Von HippelT. (Eds.), Comparative corporate governance of non-profit organizations (pp. 73-126). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
43.
Tam ChoW. K.GainesB. J. (2007). Breaking the (Benford) Law: Statistical fraud detection in campaign finance. The American Statistician, 61, 218-223.
44.
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.
45.
TrusselJ. (2003). Assessing potential accounting manipulation: The financial characteristics of charitable organizations with higher than expected program-spending ratios. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 32, 616-634.
Van CaneghemT. (2016). NPO financial statement quality: An empirical analysis based on Benford’s Law. Voluntas, 27, 2685-2708.
49.
Van SlykeD. M. (2007). Agents or stewards: Using theory to understand the government-nonprofit social service contracting relationship. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17, 157-187.
50.
WingK.GordonT.HagerM.PollakT.RooneyP. (2006). Functional expense reporting for nonprofits: The accounting profession’s next scandal?The CPA Journal, 76, 14-18.
51.
YetmanM. H.YetmanR. J. (2013). Do donors discount low-quality accounting information?Accounting Review, 88, 1041-1067.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
