While little evidence supports the notion that financially responsible nonprofits must maintain low overhead ratios, the persistent preference for reduced overhead costs endures. Our study explores (a) the extent of underreporting behaviors, (b) the level of trust (or distrust) that nonprofit leaders have in overhead ratio reports, and (c) the motivations perceived by managers that drive nonprofits to adjust their overhead ratios and the resulting consequences. Experiment results from the “item sum double-list technique” (ISDLT) reveal that nonprofit managers may artificially lower their overhead ratios by approximately 10 percentage points, a range spanning from 7 to 16 percentage points. This adjustment aims to enhance their competitiveness in the funding market. Our vignette-based experiment uncovers significant trust issues related to reported low overhead ratios, potentially indicating accounting manipulation within the field. Complemented by open-ended survey responses from nonprofit managers, our research offers valuable insights into this domain.
AguinisH.BradleyK. (2014). Best practice recommendations for designing and implementing experimental vignette methodology studies. Organizational Research Methods, 17(4), 351–371. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114547952
2.
AltamimiH.LiuQ. (2022). The nonprofit starvation cycle: Does overhead spending impact program outcomes?Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 51(6), 1324–1348. https://doi.org/10.1177/08997640211057404
BerrettJ. (2022). Linking overhead expenses and nonprofit effectiveness: Evidence from habitat for humanity. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 32(4), 509–530. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.21492
6.
BhattacharyaR.TinkelmanD. (2009). How tough are better business bureau/wise giving alliance financial standards?Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38(3), 467–489. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764008316120
7.
BlairG.CoppockA.MoorM. (2020). When to worry about sensitivity bias: A social reference theory and evidence from 30 Years of list experiments. American Political Science Review, 114(4), 1297–1315. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055420000374
8.
BrightL. (2016). Is public service motivation a better explanation of nonprofit career preferences than government career preferences?Public Personnel Management, 45(4), 405–424. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026016676093
9.
Bruno-van VijfeijkenT.SchmitzH. P. (2011). Commentary: A gap between ambition and effectiveness. Journal of Civil Society, 7(3), 287–292. https://doi.org/10.1080/17448689.2011.604998
10.
Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University. (2012). Financial literacy and knowledge in the nonprofit sector [Report]. Moody’s Foundation.
CharlesC.KimM. (2016). Do donors care about results? An analysis of nonprofit arts and cultural organizations. Public Performance & Management Review, 39(4), 864–884. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2015.1137775
13.
CharlesC.SloanM. F.SchubertP. (2020). If someone else pays for overhead, do donors still care?American Review of Public Administration, 50(4–5), 415–427. https://doi.org/10.1177/027507402091398
14.
CnaanR.JonesK.DickinA.SalomonM. (2011). Nonprofit watchdogs: Do they serve the average donor?Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 21(4), 381–397. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.20032
15.
CoupetJ.BerrettJ. L. (2019). Toward a valid approach to nonprofit efficiency measurement. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 29(3), 299–320. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.21336
16.
de Andrés-AlonsoP.CruzN. M.Romero-MerinoM. E. (2006). The governance of nonprofit organizations: Empirical evidence from nongovernmental development organizations in Spain. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35(4), 588–604. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764006289765
17.
FrumkinP. (2005). On being nonprofit: A conceptual and policy primer. Harvard University Press.
18.
GarvenS.HofmannM. A.McSwainD. (2016). Playing the numbers game. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 26(4), 401–416. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.21201
19.
GeerB.MaherJ.ColeM. (2008). Managing nonprofit organizations: The importance of transformational leadership and commitment to operating standards for nonprofit accountability. Public Performance & Management Review, 32(1), 51–75. https://doi.org/10.2753/PMR1530-9576320103
20.
GregoryA.HowardD. (2009). The nonprofit starvation cycle. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 7(4), 29–53.
21.
HagerM. A.PollakT.WingK.RooneyP. M. (2004). Getting what we pay for: Low overhead limits nonprofit effectiveness (Nonprofit Overhead Cost Project, Brief No. 3). Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy at the, Urban Institute; Center of Philanthropy at Indiana University.
22.
HarrisE.PetrovitsC. M.YetmanM. H. (2023). Spreading the news: Donor response to disclosures about Nonprofit Fraud?Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/08997640231179752
23.
JamesO.Van RyzinG. (2017). Incredibly good performance: An experimental study of source and level effects on the credibility of government. American Review of Public Administration, 47(1), 23–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/027507401558039
24.
JegersM. (2022). Donations and the overhead ratio are related even when donors do not bother about efficiency. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 51(1), 216–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/08997640211013894
25.
JonesC. L.RobertsA. A. (2006). Management of financial information in charitable organizations: The case of joint-cost allocations. The Accounting Review, 81(1), 159–178. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr.2006.81.1.159
26.
KeatingE.FrumkinP. (2003). Reengineering nonprofit financial accountability: Toward a more reliable foundation for regulation. Public Administration Review, 63(1), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6210.00260
27.
KimM.CharbonneauÉ. (2020). Caught between volunteerism and professionalism: Support by nonprofit leaders for the donative labor hypothesis. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 40(2), 327–349. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X18816139
KrishnanR.YetmanM. H. (2011). Institutional drivers of reporting decisions in nonprofit hospitals. Journal of Accounting Research, 49(4), 1001–1039. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-679X.2011.00413.x
31.
KrishnanR.YetmanM. H.YetmanR. J. (2006). Expense misreporting in nonprofit organizations. The Accounting Review, 81(2), 399–420.
32.
KrumpalI.JannB.KorndörferM.SchmukleS. (2018). Item sum double-list technique: An Enhanced design for asking quantitative sensitive questions. Survey Research Methods, 12(2), 91–102. https://doi.org/10.18148/srm/2018.v12i2.7247
33.
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(3), 539–563. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764014527175
34.
LeeM. (2004). Public reporting: A neglected aspect of nonprofit accountability. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 15(2), 169–185. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.60
35.
LiJ.Van den NoortgateW. (2022). A meta-analysis of the relative effectiveness of the item count technique compared to direct questioning. Sociological Methods & Research, 51(2), 760–799. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124119882468
36.
LiketK. C.MaasK. (2015). Nonprofit organizational effectiveness: Analysis of best practices. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 44(2), 268–296. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764013510064
MeyerJ. W.RowanB. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363. https://doi.org/10.1086/226550
39.
MosleyJ. (2011). Institutionalization, privatization, and political opportunity: What tactical choices reveal about the policy Advocacy of Human Service Nonprofits. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(3), 435–457. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764009346335
40.
Nicholson-CrottyJ.MillerS. (2012). Bureaucratic effectiveness and influence in the legislature. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(2), 347–371. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mur054
41.
OlsonG. M.DuffyS. A.MackR. L. (1984). Thinking-out-loud as a method for studying real-time comprehension processes. In KierasD. E.JustM. A. (Eds.), New methods in reading comprehension research (pp. 253–286). Erlbaum.
42.
PallottaD. (2008). Uncharitable: How restraints on nonprofits undermine their potential. Tufts University Press.
43.
ParkY.MatkinD. (2021). The demise of the overhead myth: Administrative capacity and financial sustainability in nonprofit nursing homes. Public Administration Review, 61(3), 543–557. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13269
44.
ParsonsL. M.PryorC.RobertsA. A. (2017). Pressure to manage ratios and willingness to do so: Evidence from nonprofit managers. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 46(4), 705–724.
45.
PfefferJ.SalancikG. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. Harper & Row.
46.
QuH.Levine DanielJ. (2021). Is “overhead” a tainted word? A survey experiment exploring framing effects of nonprofit overhead on donor decision. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 50(2), 397–419. https://doi.org/10.1177/08997640209594
47.
RemlerD. K.Van RyzinG. G. (2014). Research methods in practice: Strategies for description and causation (2nd ed.). Sage.
48.
RooksG.RaubW.SeltenR.TazelaarF. (2000). How inter-firm co-operation depends on social embeddedness: A vignette study. Acta Sociologica, 43(2), 123–137. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001699300043002
49.
SchubertP.BoenigkS. (2019). The nonprofit starvation cycle: Empirical evidence from a German context. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 48(3), 467–491. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764018824669
50.
SlomskiA. (2014). Mindfulness-based intervention and substance abuse relapse. Journal of the American Medical Association, 311(24), 2472.
51.
ThomasK.JohannD.KritzingerS.PlesciaC.ZeglovitsE. (2017). Estimating sensitive behavior: The ICT and high-incidence electoral behavior. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 29(1), 157–171. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edw002
52.
TianY.HungC.FrumkinP. (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
53.
TinkelmanD. (2009). Unintended consequences of expense ratio guidelines: The Avon breast cancer walks. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 28(6), 485–494.
