Donors may be unwilling to acquire information about nonprofit performance because information is costly, potentially resulting in inefficient giving. Using an experiment, we evaluate the hypothesis that donors can be induced to give more efficiently when information costs are borne by another donor, holding total spending constant. We propose that information about nonprofit performance is a social good with significant positive externalities that donors may not equally value. In consequence, donors on average may tend to acquire too little information relative to the social optimum. We find that average donation impact can be increased by about 13% by shifting the information cost burden. We conclude with recommendations for policymakers, public agencies, information intermediaries, donor-advised funds, nonprofit practitioners, and researchers.
AdenaM.AlizadeJ.BohnercF.HarkeaJ.MesterscF. (2019). Quality certification for nonprofits, charitable giving, and donor’s trust: Experimental evidence. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 159, 75–100.
2.
AndreoniJ. (1990). Impure altruism and donations to public goods: A theory of warm-glow giving. The Economic Journal, 100(401), 464–477.
3.
AndreoniJ.PayneA. A. (2003). Do government grants to private charities crowd out giving or fund-raising?The American Economic Review, 93(3), 792–812.
4.
BartlettV.Bugg-LevineA.EricksonD.GallowayI.GenserJ.TalanskyJ. (Eds.). (2017). What matters: Investing in results to build strong, vibrant communities. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco and Nonprofit Finance Fund.
5.
BekkersR.WiepkingP. (2011a). A literature review of empirical studies of philanthropy: Eight mechanisms that drive charitable giving. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(5), 924–973.
6.
BekkersR.WiepkingP. (2011b). Who gives? A literature review of predictors of charitable giving part one: Religion, education, age and socialisation. Voluntary Sector Review, 2(3), 337–365. https://doi.org/10.1332/204080511x6087712
7.
BhatiA.HansenR. K. (2020). A literature review of experimental studies in fundraising. Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, 3(1), 1–19.
8.
Bodem-SchrötgensJ.BeckerA. (2020). Do you like what you see? How nonprofit campaigns with output, outcome, and impact effectiveness indicators influence charitable behavior. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 49(2), 316–335.
9.
BrestP. (2012). A decade of outcome-oriented philanthropy. Stanford Social Innovation Review.
10.
BrestP. (2015). Strategic philanthropy and its discontents. Stanford Social Innovation Review.
11.
BrownA. L.MeerJ.WilliamsJ. F. (2017). Social distance and quality ratings in charity choice. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 66, 9–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2016.04.006
12.
CaviolaL.FaulmüllerN.EverettJ. A. C.SavulescuJ.KahaneG. (2014). The evaluability bias in charitable giving: Saving administration costs or saving lives?Judgment and Decision Making, 9(4), 303–315.
13.
CaviolaL.SchubertS.TepermanE.MossD.GreenbergS.FaberN. S. (2020). Donors vastly underestimate differences in charities’ effectiveness. Judgment and Decision Making, 15(4), 509–516.
14.
CharlesC.KimM. (2016). Do donors care about results? An analysis of nonprofit arts and cultural organizations. Public Performance and Management Review, 39, 864–884.
15.
CharlesC.SloanM. F.SchubertP. (2020). If someone else pays for overhead, do donors still care?The American Review of Public Administration, 50(4–5), 415–427. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074020913989
16.
CochraneL.ThorntonA. (2016). Charity rankings: Delivering development or dehumanising aid?Journal of International Development, 28, 57–73.
17.
CoupetJ.BroussardP. (2021). Do donors respond to nonprofit performance? Evidence from housing. Public Performance & Management Review, 44, 108–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2020.1812409
18.
CoupetJ.HaynieJ. L. (2019). Toward a valid approach to nonprofit efficiency measurement. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 29(2), 299–320. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.21336
19.
CrumplerH.GrossmanP. J. (2008). An experimental test of warm glow giving. Journal of Public Economics, 92, 1011–1021.
20.
DouglasB. D.EwellP. J.BrauerM. (2023). Data quality in online human-subjects research: Comparisons between MTurk, Prolific, CloudResearch, Qualtrics, and SONA. PLOS ONE, 18(3), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0279720
GoldsekerS.MoodyM. (2017). Generation impact: How next generation donors are revolutionizing giving. John Wiley.
23.
GreenhalghC.MontgomeryP. (2020). A systematic review of the barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by philanthropists when determining which charities (including health charities or programmes) to fund. Systematic Reviews, 9(199), 1–13.
24.
GregoryA. G.HowardD. (2009). The nonprofit starvation cycle. Stanford Social Innovation Review.
25.
HansmannH. (1980). The role of nonprofit enterprise. The Yale Law Journal, 89(5), 835–902.
26.
HauserD. J.MossA. J.RosenzweigC.JaffeS. N.RobinsonJ.LitmanL. (2023). Evaluating CloudResearch’s Approved Group as a solution for problematic data quality on MTurk. Behavior Research Methods, 55(8), 3953–3964. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-022-01999-x
27.
HungC.HagerM. A.TianY. (2023). Do donors penalize nonprofits with higher non-program costs? A meta-analysis of donor overhead aversion. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 52(6), 1587–1608. https://doi.org/10.1177/08997640221138260
KarlanD.WoodD. H. (2017). The effect of aid effectiveness: Donor response to aid effectiveness in a direct mail fundraising experiment. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 66(1), 1–8.
30.
LecyJ. D.SearingE. A. M. (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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764014527175
31.
ListJ. A.MurphyJ. J.PriceM. K.JamesA. G. (2021). An experimental test of fundraising appeals targeting donor and recipient benefits. Nature Human Behavior, 5, 1339–1348. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01095-8
32.
MacAskillW. (2016). Doing good better: How effective altruism can help you help others, do work that matters, and make smarter choices about giving back. Avery.
33.
MacAskillW. (2017). Effective altruism: An introduction. Essays in Philosophy, 18(1), 1–5.
34.
MayoJ. (2025). Navigating the notches: Charity responses to ratings. Journal of Political Economy Microeconomics, 3(1), 98–137. https://doi.org/10.1086/732241
35.
McDougleL. M.HandyF. (2014). The influence of information costs on donor decision making. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 24(4), 465–485. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.21105
36.
MetzgerL.GüntherI. (2019a). Is it what you say or how you say it? The impact of aid effectiveness information and its framing on donation behavior. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 83, 101461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2019.101461
37.
MetzgerL.GüntherI. (2019b). Making an impact? The relevance of information on aid effectiveness for charitable giving. A laboratory experiment. Journal of Development Economics, 136, 18–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2018.08.015
38.
MitchellG. E. (2014). Creating a philanthropic marketplace through accounting, disclosure, and intermediation. Public Performance and Management Review, 38(1), 23–47.
39.
MitchellG. E. (2017). Fiscal leanness and fiscal responsiveness: Exploring the normative limits of strategic nonprofit financial management. Administration & Society, 49(9), 1272–1296. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399715581035
40.
MitchellG. E. (2018). Modalities of managerialism: The “double bind” of normative and instrumental nonprofit managerial imperatives. Administration & Society, 50(7), 1037–1068. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399716664832
41.
MitchellG. E.CalabreseT. D. (2019). Proverbs of nonprofit financial management. American Review of Public Administration, 49(6), 649–661. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074018770458
42.
MitchellG. E.CalabreseT. D. (2020). Instrumental philanthropy, nonprofit theory, and information costs. Nonprofit Policy Forum, 11(2), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1515/npf-2019-0050
43.
MitchellG. E.CalabreseT. D. (2023). The hidden cost of trustworthiness. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 52(2), 304–326. https://doi.org/10.1177/08997640221092794
44.
MitchellG. E.CoupetJ. (2024). Sector theorists should revisit the role of information. In ChildC.WitesmanE. (Eds.), Reimagining nonprofits (pp. 191–214). Cambridge University Press.
MoodyM. (2024). Impact giving: Insights from frontline fundraisers on the changing major donor landscape. Association for Research on Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary Action Conference. Washington, DC.
47.
NullC. (2011). Warm glow, information, and inefficient charitable giving. Journal of Public Economics, 95, 455–456.
48.
OrdT. (2013). The moral imperative toward cost-effectiveness in global health. Center for Global Development.
49.
PortilloJ. E.StinnJ. (2018). Overhead aversion: Do some types of overhead matter more than others?Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 72, 40–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2017.11.003
50.
QuH.DanielJ. L. (2021). Is “overhead” a tainted word? A survey experiment exploring framing effects of nonprofit overhead on donor decision. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 50, 397–419. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764020959475
51.
SchmidtA. B. (2014). Divining a vision for markets for good. In HendersonE. J. (Ed.), Selected readings: Making sense of data and information in the social sector (pp. 61–81). Markets for Good.
52.
SingerP. (2017). The most good you can do: How effective altruism is changing ideas about living ethically. Yale University Press.
53.
SloanM. F. (2009). The effects of nonprofit accountability ratings on donor behavior. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38(2), 220–236.
54.
SteinbergR. (1990). Profits and incentive compensation in nonprofit firms. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 1(2), 137–151.
55.
TaggartG.CooperK. E. (2023). Testing how information about cost-effectiveness, cause preferences, and geographic preferences interact to affect philanthropic giving. Journal of Philanthropy and Marketing, 28, Article e1808. https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.1808
VollanB.HenningK.StaewaD. (2017). Do campaigns featuring impact evaluations increase donations? Evidence from a survey experiment. Journal of Development Effectiveness, 9(4), 500–518.
58.
WeinsteinM. M.BradburdR. M. (2013). The robin hood rules for smart giving. Columbia University Press.
59.
WeisbrodB. A. (1986). Toward a theory of the voluntary nonprofit sector in a three-sector economy. In Rose-AckermanS. (Ed.), The economics of nonprofit institutions: Studies in structure and policy (pp. 21–44). Oxford University Press.
60.
WeisbrodB. A. (1988). The nonprofit economy. Harvard University Press.
61.
WeisbrodB. A.SchlesingerM. (1986). Public, private, nonprofit ownership and the response to asymmetric information: The case of nursing homes. In Rose-AckermanS. (Ed.), The economics of nonprofit institutions (pp. 133–151). Oxford University Press.
62.
WiepkingP.BekkersR. (2012). Who gives? A literature review of predictors of charitable giving. Part two: Gender, family composition and income. Voluntary Sector Review, 3(2), 217–245. https://doi.org/10.1332/204080512x649379
63.
WingK.HagerM. A. (2004). Getting what we pay for: Low overhead limits nonprofit effectiveness. Urban Institute.
