Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Nonprofit overhead ratios (i.e., proportion of funds spent on fundraising and/or management) have long been used as a proxy for nonprofit efficiency. Prior studies find that donors negatively respond to charities with higher overhead. Using a survey experiment, we explore whether providing different types of information about overhead alleviates this donor aversion. When asked to choose between two organizations as donation recipients, donors preferred the organization with lower overhead. However, when presented with information that described the purpose of higher overhead as building long-term organizational capacity, an increased proportion of donors chose to give to the organization with higher overhead. Omitting the word “overhead” further increased the proportion of donors choosing the organization with higher overhead. This study adds to our understanding of overhead aversion and has practical implications for nonprofits that rely on voluntary private contributions to achieve their missions.

Keywords

overhead charitable giving fundraising starvation cycle framing

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bekkers

(2003). Trust, accreditation, and philanthropy in the Netherlands. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 32(4), 596–615.

Bekkers

Wiepking

(2011). A literature review of empirical studies of philanthropy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(5), 924–973.

Bishop

G. F.

(2008). Item order randomization. In Lavrakas

P. J.

(Ed.), Encyclopedia of survey research methods (p. 398). SAGE.

Bowman

(2006). Should donors care about overhead costs? Do they care? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35(2), 288–310.

CalNonprofits. (n.d.). What is overhead? https://calnonprofits.org/programs/overhead/about-the-nonprofit-overhead-project/what-is

Chang

C.-T.

Lee

Y.-K.

(2009). Framing charity advertising: Influences of message framing, image valence, and temporal framing on a charitable appeal. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39(12), 2910–2935.

Charles

Sloan

M. F.

Schubert

(2020). If someone else pays for overhead, do donors still care? American Review of Public Administration, 50(4–5), 415–427. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074020913989

Chikoto

G. L.

Neely

D. G.

(2014). Building nonprofit financial capacity: The impact of revenue concentration and overhead costs. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43(3), 570–588.

Chong

Druckman

J. N.

(2007). Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 10(1), 103–126.

10.

Coupet

Berrett

J. L.

(2019). Toward a valid approach to nonprofit efficiency measurement. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 29, 299–320.

11.

Curran

P. G.

(2016). Methods for the detection of carelessly invalid responses in survey data. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 66, 4–19.

12.

Di Mento

. (2019, September 4). Five CEOs of wealthy foundations pledge to do more to help charities pay overhead. The Chronicle of Philanthropy. https://www.philanthropy.com/article/5-CEOs-of-Big-Foundations/247063

13.

Duncan

(2004). A theory of impact philanthropy. Journal of Public Economics, 88(9–10), 2159–2180.

14.

Eckerd

(2015). Two approaches to nonprofit financial ratios and the implications for managerial incentives. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 44(3), 437–456.

15.

Forbes Nonprofit Council. (2016, June 14). Five nonprofit leaders share how to keep overhead costs to a minimum. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesnonprofitcouncil/2016/06/14/five-nonprofit-leaders-share-how-to-keep-overhead-costs-to-a-minimum/#15fe0ea81652

16.

Froelich

K. A.

Knoepfle

T. W.

Pollak

T. 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.

17.

Frumkin

Kim

M. T.

(2001). Strategic positioning and the financing of nonprofit organizations: Is efficiency rewarded in the contributions marketplace? Public Administration Review, 61(3), 266–275.

18.

Gamliel

Kreiner

(2020). Applying fuzzy-trace theory to attribute-framing bias: Gist and verbatim representations of quantitative information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 46(3), 497–506.

19.

George

Pandey

S. K.

(2017). We know the Yin—But where is the Yang? Toward a balanced approach on common source bias in public administration scholarship. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 37(2), 245–270.

20.

Gneezy

Keenan

E. A.

Gneezy

(2014). Avoiding overhead aversion in charity. Science, 346(6209), 632–635.

21.

Greenlee

J. S.

Trussel

J. M.

(2000). Predicting the financial vulnerability of charitable organizations. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 11(2), 199–210.

22.

Gregory

A. G.

Howard

(2009). The nonprofit starvation cycle. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 7, 49–53.

23.

Grey Matter Research & OP4G. (2018). The elephant in the room: Charitable overhead ratios and donor decisions.

24.

Kahneman

Tversky

(1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263–291.

25.

Keating

E. K.

Parsons

L. M.

Roberts

A. A.

(2008). Misreporting fundraising: How do nonprofit organizations account for telemarketing campaigns? The Accounting Review, 83, 417–446.

26.

Knowlton

(2018, September 10). Why funding overhead is not the real issue: The case to cover full costs. Nonprofit Quarterly. https://nonprofitquarterly.org/why-funding-overhead-is-not-the-real-issue-the-case-to-cover-full-costs/

27.

Krishnan

Yetman

M. H.

Yetman

R. J.

(2006). Expense misreporting in nonprofit organizations. The Accounting Review, 81(2), 399–420.

28.

Lecy

J. D.

Searing

E. A.

(2015). Anatomy of the nonprofit starvation cycle: An analysis of falling overhead ratios in the nonprofit sector. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 44(3), 539–563.

29.

Levin

I. P.

Gaeth

G. J.

(1988). How consumers are affected by the framing of attribute information before and after consuming the product. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(3), 374–378. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1086/209174

30.

Levin

I. P.

Schneider

S. L.

Gaeth

G. J.

(1998). All frames are not created equal: A typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76, 149–188.

31.

Meer

(2017). Are overhead costs a good guide for charitable giving? IZA World of Labor. https://wol.iza.org/articles/are-overhead-costs-good-guide-for-charitable-giving/long

32.

Metzger

Günther

(2019). Making an impact? The relevance of information on aid effectiveness for charitable giving—A laboratory experiment. Journal of Development Economics, 136, 18–33.

33.

Müller

Rau

H. A.

(2016). How gender and risk preferences influence charitable giving: Experimental evidence (Center for European, Governance and Economic Development Research No. 264). http://wwwuser.gwdg.de/~cege/Diskussionspapiere/DP264.pdf

34.

National Council of Nonprofits. (n.d.). (Mis)understanding overhead. https://www.councilofnonprofits.org/tools-resources/misunderstanding-overhead

35.

Newman

G. E.

Shniderman

Cain

D. M.

Sevel

(2019). Do the ends justify the means? The relative focus on overhead versus outcomes in charitable fundraising. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 48(1), 71–90.

36.

Oosterhof

Heuvelman

Peters

(2009). Donation to disaster relief campaigns: Underlying social cognitive factors exposed. Evaluation and Program Planning, 32(2), 148–157.

37.

The Overhead Myth. (n.d.). http://overheadmyth.com/

38.

Portillo

J. E.

Stinn

(2018). Overhead aversion: Do some types of overhead matter more than others? Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 72, 40–50.

39.

Steinberg

Burger

(2020). Abiding by the law? Using Benford’s law to examine the accuracy of nonprofit financial reports. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 49(3), 548–570.

40.

Reyna

V. F.

Brainerd

C. J.

(1991). Fuzzy-trace theory and framing effects in choice: Gist extraction, truncation, and conversion. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 4(4), 249–262. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.3960040403

41.

Sargeant

Lee

(2002). Individual and contextual antecedents of donor trust in the voluntary sector. Journal of Marketing Management, 18(7–8), 779–802.

42.

Steinberg

(1986). Should donors care about fundraising? In Rose-Ackerman

(Ed.), The economics of nonprofit institutions—Studies in structure and policy (pp. 346–364). Oxford University Press.

43.

Sussman

A. B.

Sharma

Alter

A. L.

(2015). Framing charitable donations as exceptional expenses increases giving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 21(2), 130–139.

44.

Tian

Hung

Frumkin

(2020). Breaking the nonprofit starvation cycle? An experimental test. Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, 3(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.30636/jbpa.31.93

45.

Tinkelman

Mankaney

(2007). When is administrative efficiency associated with charitable donations? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(1), 41–64.

46.

Tuckman

H. P.

Chang

C. F.

(1991). A methodology for measuring the financial vulnerability of charitable nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 20(4), 445–460.

47.

Tversky

Kahneman

(1986). Rational choice and the framing of decisions. The Journal of Business, 59(4, Pt. 2), S251–S278.

48.

Urban Institute & Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University. (2004, February). What we know about overhead costs in the nonprofit sector (Brief No. 1, Nonprofit Overhead Cost Project).

49.

Webb

D. J.

Green

C. L.

Brashear

T. G.

(2000). Development and validation of scales to measure attitudes influencing monetary donations to charitable organizations. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(2), 299–309.

50.

Wellar

(2018, September 21). About nonprofit waste, overhead, and financial subservience. Nonprofit Quarterly. https://nonprofitquarterly.org/about-nonprofit-waste-overhead-and-financial-subservience/

51.

Wing

Hager

M. A.

(2004). Getting what we pay for: Low overhead limits nonprofit effectiveness (Brief No. 3). The Urban Institute.

52.

Women’s Cancer Research Foundation. (n.d.). https://www.guidestar.org/profile/33-0865870

53.

Women’s Philanthropy Institute. (2015). Do women give more?

54.

Zaller

Feldman

(1992). A simple theory of the survey response: Answering questions versus revealing. American Journal of Political Science, 36(3), 579–616.

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.

0.00 MB

0.06 MB