There are over 10 million non-government organizations worldwide. Donors do not have enough time, attention, or cognitive bandwidth to evaluate and consider their relative merits when deciding to whom and how much to give.
Even when donors do narrow down their options to, say, charities working on certain issues, with specific communities, or in particular geographic locations, there are still many hassles when it comes to researching and comparing organizations. Objective information about effectiveness and impact is often difficult to find, and it is not communicated in an easily understandable and comparable way.
In both cases, donors often make donation decisions based on limited information. They give based on emotion or in reaction to a clever appeal. Or, perhaps worse, they give ad-hoc or randomly. Others opt not to make any donation at all, leaving the social sectorour worlds safety netat risk of financial failure.
But what happens when donors are provided with accessible, standardized, and objective metrics, and can see charities presented side-by-side?
Short answer: they give more effectively to charities making a measurable impact.
People often wonderdo metrics really matter?
Over the past eight years, the Impact Genome Fund (Impact Genome), a publicly funded research initiative of the Tides Foundation, has been pioneering standardized, objective impact metrics for all nonprofits. Weve collected metrics on thousands of charities and consolidated them in our nonprofit registry. These metrics include information that could be useful to donors in making more informed decisions. Among them:
The theory we wanted to test was whether standardized comparable impact dataspecifically, the five metrics aboveis critical to solving an overarching problem in the charitable giving space: choice architecture. Choice architecture is the design of different ways in which choices can be presented to decision makers, and the impact of that presentation on decision-making.
The choice architecture for funding decisions is typically weak. The overwhelming number of charities, the inconsistency of the type and amount of information available, the inability of donors to compare options easily, and the lack of salient objective metrics for comparison make it difficult for donors to make an optimal donation decision.
But does our theory hold up? If donors have access to better choice architecture, will they change their giving?
Impact Genome recently partnered with ideas42, with funding from Fidelity Charitable Trustees Initiative, to test whether the availability of these types of metrics and a better choice architecture had any influence on giving behavior. As a nonprofit committed to bettering the world through behavioral science, ideas42 uses insights from human behaviorwhy people do what they doto help improve lives, build better systems, and drive social change.
Together, we tested the influence of choice architecture on donation decisions in terms of both which charity to donate to and how much to donate. The study used a multi-methodological approach carried out with the AmeriSpeak panel at NORC at the University of Chicagoa representative, probability-based sample of more than 1,500 Americans.
We ran a controlled experimental study that involved a simulated decision using real money. Participants were told they would go through eight rounds where they would decide to keep or donate $5 to one of the charities they saw. To make the decision feel less hypothetical, they were told there was a random chance that one of those rounds would be carried out with real money. In that round, whatever amount they decided to donate would be sent to the charity they selected, and the amount they decided to keep would be added to their base payment.
First, participants were shown three hypothetical charities with various amounts of information. Participants were assigned to one of three treatment groups and given $5, which they could keep or donate as they saw fit. They were then asked to select the charity they were most likely to support and how much of their $5 they wanted to donate.
The Control Group saw only the charity descriptions. Treatment Group 1 saw both the charity descriptions and objective metrics, including the number of beneficiaries that achieved the outcome, the cost of producing a single outcome, whether the program operates in a high-need area, and the quality of its impact evidence. Treatment Group 2 first saw just the charity description. After they made their decision, they were given additional information about the cost-effectiveness of the charity and asked if they wanted to increase their donation by $1.
We also included a conjoint analysis with six survey rounds. Conjoint analysis is a survey-based statistical technique traditionally used in market research to quantify how consumers relatively value the attributes of a product or service. In each survey round, participants were shown two hypothetical charities with a random combination of metrics. Participants selected their preferred option of the two and then indicated if they would be willing to donate that rounds credit to the selected charity.
Finally, participants saw three real, but anonymized, charities from the Impact Genome Registry. Their descriptions and metrics were shown, but there was no clear winner. For a random 10 percent of participants, actual payments were made for this round. We needed to include this round to fulfill our promise of a random chance of real payments.
At the end of the survey, respondents were asked additional questions regarding the importance of various metrics, their experience using the metrics to make decisions, and their personal experience with charitable giving. This section included additional charity attributes (such as charity cause) to see how they compared to the more objective metrics.
In short, the study found that providing objective metrics shifted giving decisions to more effective charities when donors could compare charities side-by-side and there was a clear winner. Moreover, the majority of respondents (74 percent) said that they found it useful to compare charities using a similar framework.
Digging a little deeper, here is some of what we learned:
Does differential performance on metrics influence who gets the donation?
Yes, a lot when donors can compare charities side-by-side and there is a clear winner.
Providing objective, comparable metrics to donors at the time of the donation decision led to an 80 percent increase in the number of people that selected the most effective charity. In our study, donors were able to easily compare three giving options with a clear winner, and in that setting, metrics had a big effect on donors choices.
Do metrics increase the size of the donation?
The results were inconclusive, and more research is needed.
When comparing two roundsone with a clear winner based on the metrics and one without a clear winnerthere was no statistically significant difference in the amount of money donated.
That said, respondents who indicated they were confident in their ultimate choice of which charity to support donated statistically significantly more money. Moreover, respondents who agreed with the statement it was easy to decide which charity had the best combination of features donated statistically significantly more money.
Approximately two-thirds of respondents (61 percent to 64 percent) gave the maximum donation ($5) in any given round. This was much more than we had anticipated based on previous research. Additionally, there was no statistically significant difference in the amount of money donated between the treatment groups that did and did not see the charities metrics.
Our theory is there may have been a ceiling effecta research term for when participants in a study all cluster around the high end. Because the amount participants had to give away was so small, many opted to give it all away every time. It is possible that if respondents had more money to donate, they would have shown more variation in how much they gave.
Tying this finding to the one above, we found that providing metrics changed who donors gave money to, but not how much money they gave. Though, as we noted, the ceiling effect could mean there is more nuance in their giving decisions than our study could detect.
Do donors care about using metrics to compare charities?
Yes, they say they do.
When asked directly if it would be helpful to be able to compare charities using a similar framework when making donation decisions in their day-to-day lives, 74 percent of respondents agreed.
Importantly, as the previous findings show, their behavior agreed.
Its probably obvious that the findings were important to those of us running the study. It showed our theory was correct. The work weve been doing to provide accessible, comparable, objective metrics can and will help donors make a bigger impact.
But if you want to maximize the impact of your giving, this study should be important to you too.
Why?
Previous work at ideas42 has shown that many donors tend to engage in emotional, ad-hoc giving in response to requests, rather than proactive, strategic giving. This can lead to misalignment between their ideal goals and their actual donation behavior. Now, we know there is a better way.Using standardized, comparable metrics can help you develop a strategic approach: if you have the information you need, you can shift your donations to the most effective charities, thus maximizing your positive impact on the cause(s) you care about.The ability to make a bigger impact comes from being able to understand not just what charities do, but how well they do it.
Accessible, comparable, and objective metrics are important for institutional funders as well. Bespoke impact evaluations are expensive and can be burdensome on nonprofits if each funder wants a slightly different measurement of effectiveness. Creating standardized metrics across all charities steers us away from less meaningful metrics like overhead vs direct costs, and toward metrics that better capture outcomesultimately, the change that we want to see in the world.
With this work, our ultimate goal has been to provide data so that all donors can more effectively invest in social change and finally solve some of the worlds most intractable problems. Our study showed that making it easier to compare giving options and giving people access to the data they need does change the way they give. It makes it possible for donors to use their resources better, give to effective charities, and make a bigger impact.
Read more stories by Heather King, Marisa Nowicki, Liz Noble, Doug Palmer & Jason Saul.
Excerpt from:
How Impact Data Changes the Way Donors Give (SSIR) - Stanford Social Innovation Review
- The Impact of AI on Human Behavior: Insights and Implications - iTMunch - January 23rd, 2025 [January 23rd, 2025]
- Disturbing Wildlife Isnt Fun: IFS Parveen Kaswan Raises Concern Over Human Behavior in Viral Clip - Indian Masterminds - January 15th, 2025 [January 15th, 2025]
- The interplay of time and space in human behavior: a sociological perspective on the TSCH model - Nature.com - January 1st, 2025 [January 1st, 2025]
- Thinking Slowly: The Paradoxical Slowness of Human Behavior - Caltech - December 23rd, 2024 [December 23rd, 2024]
- From smog to crime: How air pollution is shaping human behavior and public safety - The Times of India - December 9th, 2024 [December 9th, 2024]
- The Smell Of Death Has A Strange Influence On Human Behavior - IFLScience - October 26th, 2024 [October 26th, 2024]
- "WEIRD" in psychology literature oversimplifies the global diversity of human behavior. - Psychology Today - October 2nd, 2024 [October 2nd, 2024]
- Scientists issue warning about increasingly alarming whale behavior due to human activity - Orcasonian - September 23rd, 2024 [September 23rd, 2024]
- Does AI adoption call for a change in human behavior? - Fast Company - July 26th, 2024 [July 26th, 2024]
- Dogs can smell human stress and it alters their own behavior, study reveals - New York Post - July 26th, 2024 [July 26th, 2024]
- Trajectories of brain and behaviour development in the womb, at birth and through infancy - Nature.com - June 18th, 2024 [June 18th, 2024]
- AI model predicts human behavior from our poor decision-making - Big Think - June 18th, 2024 [June 18th, 2024]
- ZkSync defends Sybil measures as Binance offers own ZK token airdrop - TradingView - June 18th, 2024 [June 18th, 2024]
- On TikTok, Goldendoodles Are People Trapped in Dog Bodies - The New York Times - June 18th, 2024 [June 18th, 2024]
- 10 things only introverts find irritating, according to psychology - Hack Spirit - June 18th, 2024 [June 18th, 2024]
- 32 animals that act weirdly human sometimes - Livescience.com - May 24th, 2024 [May 24th, 2024]
- NBC Is Using Animals To Push The LGBT Agenda. Here Are 5 Abhorrent Animal Behaviors Humans Shouldn't Emulate - The Daily Wire - May 24th, 2024 [May 24th, 2024]
- New study examines the dynamics of adaptive autonomy in human volition and behavior - PsyPost - May 24th, 2024 [May 24th, 2024]
- 30000 years of history reveals that hard times boost human societies' resilience - Livescience.com - May 12th, 2024 [May 12th, 2024]
- Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes Actors Had Trouble Reverting Back to Human - CBR - May 12th, 2024 [May 12th, 2024]
- The need to feel safe is a core driver of human behavior. - Psychology Today - April 15th, 2024 [April 15th, 2024]
- AI learned how to sway humans by watching a cooperative cooking game - Science News Magazine - March 29th, 2024 [March 29th, 2024]
- We can't combat climate change without changing minds. This psychology class explores how. - Northeastern University - March 11th, 2024 [March 11th, 2024]
- Bees Reveal a Human-Like Collective Intelligence We Never Knew Existed - ScienceAlert - March 11th, 2024 [March 11th, 2024]
- Franciscan AI expert warns of technology becoming a 'pseudo-religion' - Detroit Catholic - March 11th, 2024 [March 11th, 2024]
- Freshwater resources at risk thanks to human behavior - messenger-inquirer - March 11th, 2024 [March 11th, 2024]
- Astrocytes Play Critical Role in Regulating Behavior - Neuroscience News - March 11th, 2024 [March 11th, 2024]
- Freshwater resources at risk thanks to human behavior - Sunnyside Sun - March 11th, 2024 [March 11th, 2024]
- Freshwater resources at risk thanks to human behavior - Blue Mountain Eagle - March 11th, 2024 [March 11th, 2024]
- 7 Books on Human Behavior - Times Now - March 11th, 2024 [March 11th, 2024]
- Euphemisms increasingly used to soften behavior that would be questionable in direct language - Norfolk Daily News - February 29th, 2024 [February 29th, 2024]
- Linking environmental influences, genetic research to address concerns of genetic determinism of human behavior - Phys.org - February 29th, 2024 [February 29th, 2024]
- Emerson's Insight: Navigating the Three Fundamental Desires of Human Nature - The Good Men Project - February 29th, 2024 [February 29th, 2024]
- Dogs can recognize a bad person and there's science to prove it. - GOOD - February 29th, 2024 [February 29th, 2024]
- What Is Organizational Behavior? Everything You Need To Know - MarketWatch - February 4th, 2024 [February 4th, 2024]
- Overcoming 'Otherness' in Scientific Research Commentary in Nature Human Behavior USA - English - USA - PR Newswire - February 4th, 2024 [February 4th, 2024]
- "Reichman University's behavioral economics program: Navigating human be - The Jerusalem Post - January 19th, 2024 [January 19th, 2024]
- Of trees, symbols of humankind, on Tu BShevat - The Jewish Star - January 19th, 2024 [January 19th, 2024]
- Tapping Into The Power Of Positive Psychology With Acclaimed Expert Niyc Pidgeon - GirlTalkHQ - January 19th, 2024 [January 19th, 2024]
- Don't just make resolutions, 'be the architect of your future self,' says Stanford-trained human behavior expert - CNBC - December 31st, 2023 [December 31st, 2023]
- Never happy? Humans tend to imagine how life could be better : Short Wave - NPR - December 31st, 2023 [December 31st, 2023]
- People who feel unhappy but hide it well usually exhibit these 9 behaviors - Hack Spirit - December 31st, 2023 [December 31st, 2023]
- If you display these 9 behaviors, you're being passive aggressive without realizing it - Hack Spirit - December 31st, 2023 [December 31st, 2023]
- Men who are relationship-oriented by nature usually display these 9 behaviors - Hack Spirit - December 31st, 2023 [December 31st, 2023]
- A look at the curious 'winter break' behavior of ChatGPT-4 - ReadWrite - December 14th, 2023 [December 14th, 2023]
- Neuroscience and Behavior Major (B.S.) | College of Liberal Arts - UNH's College of Liberal Arts - December 14th, 2023 [December 14th, 2023]
- The positive health effects of prosocial behaviors | News | Harvard ... - HSPH News - October 27th, 2023 [October 27th, 2023]
- The valuable link between succession planning and skills - Human Resource Executive - October 27th, 2023 [October 27th, 2023]
- Okinawa's ants show reduced seasonal behavior in areas with more human development - Phys.org - October 27th, 2023 [October 27th, 2023]
- How humans use their sense of smell to find their way | Penn Today - Penn Today - October 27th, 2023 [October 27th, 2023]
- Wrestling With Evil in the World, or Is It Something Else? - Psychiatric Times - October 27th, 2023 [October 27th, 2023]
- Shimmying like electric fish is a universal movement across species - Earth.com - October 27th, 2023 [October 27th, 2023]
- Why do dogs get the zoomies? - Care.com - October 27th, 2023 [October 27th, 2023]
- How Stuart Robinson's misconduct went overlooked for years - Washington Square News - October 27th, 2023 [October 27th, 2023]
- Whatchamacolumn: Homeless camps back in the news - News-Register - October 27th, 2023 [October 27th, 2023]
- Stunted Growth in Infants Reshapes Brain Function and Cognitive ... - Neuroscience News - October 27th, 2023 [October 27th, 2023]
- Social medias role in modeling human behavior, societies - kuwaittimes - October 27th, 2023 [October 27th, 2023]
- The gift of reformation - Living Lutheran - October 27th, 2023 [October 27th, 2023]
- After pandemic, birds are surprisingly becoming less fearful of humans - Study Finds - October 27th, 2023 [October 27th, 2023]
- Nick Treglia: The trouble with fairness and the search for truth - 1819 News - October 27th, 2023 [October 27th, 2023]
- Science has an answer for why people still wave on Zoom - Press Herald - October 27th, 2023 [October 27th, 2023]
- Orcas are learning terrifying new behaviors. Are they getting smarter? - Livescience.com - October 27th, 2023 [October 27th, 2023]
- Augmenting the Regulatory Worker: Are We Making Them Better or ... - BioSpace - October 27th, 2023 [October 27th, 2023]
- What "The Creator", a film about the future, tells us about the present - InCyber - October 27th, 2023 [October 27th, 2023]
- WashU Expert: Some parasites turn hosts into 'zombies' - The ... - Washington University in St. Louis - October 27th, 2023 [October 27th, 2023]
- Is secondhand smoke from vapes less toxic than from traditional ... - Missouri S&T News and Research - October 27th, 2023 [October 27th, 2023]
- How apocalyptic cults use psychological tricks to brainwash their ... - Big Think - October 27th, 2023 [October 27th, 2023]
- Human action pushing the world closer to environmental tipping ... - Morung Express - October 27th, 2023 [October 27th, 2023]
- What We Get When We Give | Harvard Medicine Magazine - Harvard University - October 27th, 2023 [October 27th, 2023]
- Psychological Anime: 12 Series You Should Watch - But Why Tho? - October 27th, 2023 [October 27th, 2023]
- Roosters May Recognize Their Reflections in Mirrors, Study Suggests - Smithsonian Magazine - October 27th, 2023 [October 27th, 2023]
- June 30 Zodiac: Sign, Traits, Compatibility and More - AZ Animals - May 13th, 2023 [May 13th, 2023]
- Indiana's Funding Ban for Kinsey Sex-Research Institute Threatens ... - The Chronicle of Higher Education - May 13th, 2023 [May 13th, 2023]
- Have AI Chatbots Developed Theory of Mind? What We Do and Do ... - The New York Times - March 31st, 2023 [March 31st, 2023]
- Scoop: Coming Up on a New Episode of HOUSEBROKEN on FOX ... - Broadway World - March 31st, 2023 [March 31st, 2023]
- Here's five fall 2023 classes to fire up your bookbag - Duke Chronicle - March 31st, 2023 [March 31st, 2023]
- McDonald: Aspen's like living in a 'Pullman town' - The Aspen Times - March 31st, 2023 [March 31st, 2023]
- Children Who Are Exposed to Awe-Inspiring Art Are More Likely to Become Generous, Empathic Adults, a New Study Says - artnet News - March 31st, 2023 [March 31st, 2023]
- DataDome Raises Another $42M to Prevent Bot Attacks in Real ... - AlleyWatch - March 31st, 2023 [March 31st, 2023]
- Observing group-living animals with drones may help us understand ... - Innovation Origins - March 31st, 2023 [March 31st, 2023]