Skip to main content
Log in

Does meeting BBB accountability standards affect charitable giving? A study of New York Metropolitan area charities, replicated by a US national sample

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Nonprofit organizations acquire resources from diverse sources, wherein donations play a significant role for many. To help donors and other source of public support make donative decisions, Better Business Bureaus under its Wise Giving Alliance conduct and publish review results of participating nonprofit organizations based on nationally developed criteria named as BBB STANDARDS FOR CHARITY ACCOUNTABILITY. This study assess the impact of meeting all BBB accountability criteria on the amount of public support received, using data from New York region charity organizations. The study result was replicated for validity by using an independent sample from key nonprofits from across the US in general. Multiple methods were used in data analysis, taking advantage of the data quality and availability. The research finds that participating in the accountability review program and meeting all the evaluative criteria is associated with increased public support, controlling for documented key covariates. The study is limited by its quantitative orientation and further studies to qualitatively investigate the detailed mechanism of the phenomena is recommended.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. BBB charity reviews are valid for two year periods; this is true for both BBB Wise Giving Alliance and NYBBB charity reports. The sample difference here had to do with the extent of datasets that WGA and NYBBB were able to produce and provide at the time this study was done.

References

  • Andreoni, J., & Payne, A. A. (2003). Do government grants to private charities crowd out giving or fundraising? American Economic Review, 93, 792–812.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bekkers, R., & Wiepking, P. (2011). A literature review of empirical studies of philanthropy: eight mechanisms that drive charitable giving. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(5), 924–973.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, R. (2013). Elements, causes and effects of donor engagement among supporters of UK charities. International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, 10(3), 201–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, R., & Barkensjo, A. (2005). Relationship quality, relationship marketing, and client perceptions of the levels of service quality of charitable organisations. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 16, 81–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callen, J. (1994). Money donations, volunteering and organizational efficiency. The Journal of Productivity Analysis, 5, 215–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callen, J. L., Klein, A., & Tinkelman, D. (2003). Board composition, committees, and organizational efficiency: the case of nonprofits. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 32(4), 493–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cnaan, R. A., Jones, K., Dickin, A., & Salomon, M. (2011). Nonprofit watchdogs - Do they serve the average donor? Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 21(4), 381–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, M. H., Hull, J. G., Young, R. D., & Warren, G. G. (1987). Reactions to dramatic film stimuli: the influence of cognitive and emotional empathy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 126–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, W. D., & Gooding-Williams, S. (2002). Using advertising constructs and methods to understand direct mail fundraising appeals. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 12(3), 225–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erwin, C. O., & Landry, A. Y. (2015). Organizational characteristics associated with fundraising performance of nonprofit hospitals. Journal of Healthcare Management, 60(2), 96–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Financial Standard Accounting board, SFAS 117 (2015). Accessed on Fed 02, 2015 at http://www.fasb.org/st/summary/stsum117.shtml.

  • Frumkin, P., & 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Give.org (2015). Accessed 2105 at http://give.org/about-bbb-wga/.

  • Griffin, M., Babin, B. J., Attaway, J. A., & Darden, W. R. (1993). Hey you, can ya spare some change? The case of empathy and personal distress as reactions to charitable appeals. Advances in Consumer Research, 20, 508–514.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hager, M. A. (2003). Current practices in allocation of fundraising expenditures. New Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising, 41, 39–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halina, W. M., & Ewelina, Z. (2015). Financial and non-financial factors motivating individual donors to support public benefit organizations. Comparative Economic Research, 18(1), 131–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, E., Petrovits, C., & Yetman, M. H. (2015). The effect of nonprofit governance on donations: evidence from the revised form 990. The Accounting Review, 90(2), 579–610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hasenwinkel, P. (2006). Identifying Enablers of Nonprofit High Performance. Executive Issues in Nonprofits 2005/2006. Accenture report.

  • Jones, A., & Posnett, J. (1991). Charitable donations by UK households: evidence from the family expenditure survey. Applied Economics, 23(2), 343–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kottasz, R. (2004). Differences in the donor behavior characteristics of young affluent males and females: empirical evidence from Britain. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 15, 181–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marudas, N. P., & Jacobs, F. A. (2004). Determinants of charitable donations to large U.S. higher education, hospital, and scientific research NPOs: new evidence from panel data. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 11, 157–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDougle, L. M., & Handy, F. (2014). The influence of information costs on donor decision making. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 24, 465–485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mesch, D. J., Rooney, P. M., Steinberg, K. W., & Denton, B. (2006). The effects of race, gender, and marital status on giving and volunteering in Indiana. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35, 565–587.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Okten, C., & Weisbrod, B. (2000). Determinants of donations in private nonprofit markets. Journal of Public Economics, 75, 255–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olson, D. E. (2000). Agency theory in the not-for-profit sector: its role at independent colleges. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29, 280–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J. (1973). Size, composition, and function of hospital boards of directors: the organization and its environment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 18, 349–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pike, S., Knott, K., & Newton, C. (2012). Perceptions of charities and the ultimate gift: the use of the repertory test to elicit salient bequest decision criteria. International Review on Public and Non-Profit Marketing, 9(2), 119–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polonsky, M., & Grau, S. L. (2008). Evaluating the social impact of nonprofit organizations: a conceptual foundation. Journal of Macromarketing, 28(2), 130–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polonsky, M., & Grau, S. L. (2011). Assessing the social impact of charitable organizations—four alternative approaches. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 16, 195–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Provan, K. G. (1980). Board power and organizational effectiveness among human service agencies. The Academy of Management Journal, 23(2), 221–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Radley, A., & Kennedy, M. (1992). Reflections upon charitable giving: a comparison of individuals from business, “manual” and professional backgrounds. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 2, 113–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sargeant, A., & Woodliffe, L. (2005). The antecedents of donor commitment to voluntary organizations. NonprofitManagement and Leadership, 16(1), 61–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sargeant, A., & Woodliffe, L. (2007a). Gift giving: an interdisciplinary review. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 12, 275–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sargeant, A., & Woodliffe, L. (2007b). Individual giving behaviour: A multi-disciplinary review. In A. Sargeant & W. Wymer (Eds.), The nonprofit marketing companion. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlegelmilch, B. B., & Tynan, A. (1989). The scope for market segmentation within the charity market: an empirical analysis. Managerial and Decision Economics, 1, 127–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silvergleid, J. E. (2003). Effects of watchdog organizations on the social capital market. New Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising, 41, 7–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steinberg, R. (1986). Should donors care about fundraising? In S. Rose-Ackemian (Ed.), The economics of nonprofit institutions: Studies in structure and policy (pp. 347–64). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone, M. M., Hager, M. A., & Griffin, J. J. (2001). Organizational characteristics and funding environments: a study of a population of United way-affiliated nonprofits. Public Administration Review, 61(3), 276–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tinkelman, D. (1996). An empirical study of the effect of accounting disclosures upon donations to nonprofit organizations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, New York University.

  • Tinkelman, D. (1998). Differences in sensitivity of financial statement users to joint cost allocations: the case of nonprofit organizations. Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance, 13(4), 377–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Urban Institute (2015). Quick Facts about Nonprofits. Accessed on Feb 17, 2015 at http://nccs.urban.org/statistics/quickfacts.cfm.

  • Urban Institute. (2006). Building a common outcome framework to measure nonprofit performance. Washington: The Urban Institute 2100 M Street.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webber, D. (2004). Understanding charity fundraising events. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 9(2), 122–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weikart, L. A., XXXX, G. G. & Sermier, Ed (2012). Budgeting and Financial Management for Nonprofit Organizations, CQ Press.

  • Weisbrod, B., & Dominguez, N. (1986). Demand for collective goods in private nonprofit markets: can fundraising expenditures help overcome free-rider behavior? Journal of Public Economics, 30(1), 83–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xxxx, G. (2009). Does meeting standards affect charitable giving? An empirical study of New York city charities. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 19(3), 349–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, D. R. (2007). Why study nonprofit finance. In D. R. Young (Ed.), Financing nonprofits: Putting theory into practice. Lanham: AltaMira.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The present study is supported by the Education and Research Foundation of the Better Business Bureau of Metropolitan New York, Inc. and the BBB Wise Giving Alliance. A number of people, especially Luana Lewis and Peter Espinoza at the Metro New York BBB, have provided continued support and insightful advice throughout the process of investigation. Dean David Birdsell at the school of public affairs, Baruch College, has provided insightful comments and actionable suggestions. These invaluable support and guidance are greatly appreciated.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Greg Chen.

Appendix: BBB standards for charity accountability

Appendix: BBB standards for charity accountability

Governance

  1. 1.

    A board of directors that provides adequate oversight of the charity’s operations with its staff.

  2. 2.

    A board of directors with a minimum of five voting members.

  3. 3.

    A minimum of three evenly spaced meetings per year of the full governing body with a majority in attendance and face-to-face participation.

  4. 4.

    Not more than one or 10 % (whichever is greater) directly or indirectly compensated person(s) serving as voting member(s) on the board. Compensated members shall not serve as the board’s chair or treasurer.

  5. 5.

    No transaction(s) in which any board or staff members have material conflicting interests with the charity resulting from any other relationship or business transaction.

Measuring effectiveness

  1. 6.

    Have a board policy of assessing, no less than every 2 years, the organization’s performance and effectiveness, and determining future actions required to achieve its mission.

  2. 7.

    Submit to the organization’s governing body, for its approval, a written report that outlines the results of the aforementioned performance and effectiveness assessment and recommendations for future actions.

Finances

  1. 8.

    Spend at least 65 % of its total expenses on program activities.

  2. 9.

    Spend no more than 35 % of related contributions on fundraising. Related contributions include donations, legacies and other gifts received as a result of fundraising efforts.

  3. 10.

    Avoid accumulating funds that could be used for current program activities. To meet this standard, the charity’s unrestricted net assets available for use should not be more than three times the size of the past year’s expenses or three times the size of the current year’s budget, whichever is higher.

  4. 11.

    Make available to all, on request, complete annual financial statements prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.

  5. 12.

    Include in the financial statements a breakdown of expenses (e.g., salaries, travel, postage, etc.) that shows what portion of these expenses was allocated to program, fundraising, and administrative activities.

  6. 13.

    Accurately report the charity’s expenses, including any joint cost allocations, in its financial statements.

  7. 14.

    Have a board-approved annual budget for its current fiscal year, outlining projected expenses for major program activities, fundraising and administration.

Fundraising and informational materials

  1. 15.

    Have solicitations and informational materials distributed by any means that are accurate, truthful and not misleading, both in whole and in part.

  2. 16.

    Have an annual report available to all, on request, that includes:

    1. (a)

      the organization’s mission statement,

    2. (b)

      a summary of the past year’s program service accomplishments,

    3. (c)

      a roster of the officers and members of the board of directors,

    4. (d)

      financial information that includes (i) total income in the past fiscal year, (ii) expenses in the same program, fundraising and administrative categories as in the financial statements and (iii) ending net assets.

  3. 17.

    Include on any charity websites that solicit contributions, the same information that is recommended for annual reports, as well as the mailing address of the charity and electronic access to its most recent IRS form 990.

  4. 18.

    Address privacy concerns for donors by:

    1. (a)

      providing in written appeals, at least annually, a means (e.g., such as a check off box) for both new and continuing donors to inform the charity if they do not want their name and address shared outside the organization,

    2. (b)

      providing a clear, prominent and easily accessible privacy policy on any of its websites that tells visitors (i) what information, if any, is being collected about them by the charity and how this information will be used, (ii) how to contact the charity to review personal information collected and request corrections, (iii) how to inform the charity (e.g., a check off box) that the visitor does not wish his/her personal information to be shared outside the organization, and (iv) what security measures the charity has in place to protect personal information.

  5. 19.

    Clearly disclose how the charity benefits from the sale of products or services (i.e., cause-related marketing) that state or imply that a charity will benefit from a consumer sale or transaction. Such promotions should disclose, at the point of solicitation:

    1. (a)

      the actual or anticipated portion of the purchase price that will benefit the charity (e.g., 5 cents will be contributed to abc charity for every xyz company product sold),

    2. (b)

      the duration of the campaign (e.g., the month of October),

    3. (c)

      any maximum or guaranteed minimum contribution amount (e.g., up to a maximum of $200,000).

  6. 20.

    Respond promptly to and act on complaints brought to its attention by the BBB Wise Giving Alliance and/or local Better Business Bureaus about fundraising practices, privacy policy violations and/or other issues.

Copyright 2003, BBB Wise Giving Alliance, reprinted with permission.

Additional information on these standards is available at give.org.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chen, G. Does meeting BBB accountability standards affect charitable giving? A study of New York Metropolitan area charities, replicated by a US national sample. Int Rev Public Nonprofit Mark 13, 49–68 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12208-015-0142-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12208-015-0142-7

Keywords

Navigation