Sue Chu

Capstone 7
Greene
10 November, 2016
Track Reflection
Source F
This is a 4 page research report on the effect of overhead on the donor's motivation to
donate. I spent 50 minutes reading and annotating the paper while taking detailed notes
reading this paper. The words are tightly compacted like a newspaper article and this
source is a scholarly article so it was hard to understand. I also looked closely at the
tables and graphs in order to understand the analysis of the paper. I also did further
research after reviewing the citations of this paper.
MLA/APA/AMA Citation:
Gneezy, U., Keenan, E. A., & Gneezy, A. (2014). Avoiding overhead aversion in

charity.

Science, 346(6209), 632-635.

Source Validation: This source is by published by the American Association for the
Advancement of Science by Uri Gneezy, the Epstein/Atkinson Endowed Chair in
Behavioral Economics and Professor of Economics & Strategy at the University of
California, San Diego's Rady School of Management, Elizabeth A. Keenan, an assistant
professor of business administration in the Marketing Unit, and Ayelet Gneezy, an
associate professor of marketing at the Rady School of Management, UC San Diego.
How did you find this source?: I found this source on Google Scholar.
Intended audience: The intended audience is for other researchers and scholars of the
field to see the reported data and analysis for their research.
What arguments/topics does this source discuss?:
This report mostly discusses the current trend of donors avoiding charities using a
high percentage of funds for administration and fundraising. However, the
reverse, where charities dont use money for such overheads, would limit the
ability of nonprofits to be effective. The report gives a proposed solution to use

the donations from major donors to cover the overhead cost and this would give
other potential donors an overhead-free donation.The results of the experiment
shows that donations to an organization decrease as overhead costs increase.
Usually charities begin with a single large donor and the money is then used as
either seed money or through the matching model. It would be much more
effective for organizations to use this initial donation on overhead because most
donors are biased against a high overhead. However, it is wrong for donors to
evaluate the impact and success of a charity based on its overhead cost.
Nonprofit organizations can make this change by using the suggestion above and
giving the people the option of overhead free donations. It also suggests that big
donors should support the development and maintenance of infrastructure for
charitable organizations to alleviate the loss caused by donors against overhead
costs. Even though this studies shows that overhead cost makes giving less
attractive and proposes a possible solution to the issue, it is still unable to answer
many questions. SUch as: Would using the proposed method increase overall
donations or would it simply just shift givings?
Minimum 3 quotes, paraphrases, summaries of source text that seem likely to be
helpful in future writing:
Overhead- related measures may guide donation decisions, such that higher
overhead spending decreases giving.
Donors who care about efficiency should focus on comparing the funds
producing the same good and select one producing aet the lowest price with
acceptable goods.
The percent of charity expenses that go to administrative and fundraising costscommonly referred to as overhead- is a poor measure of charitys
performance.

Source G

 This is a 8 page research paper on the intrinsic and extrinsic factors that causes donors to
donate. I spent 50 minutes reading and annotating the paper. Then, I took notes after
rereading this paper. This source is a scholarly article so the majority of the time I was
trying to understand the empirical data of their research. I also did further research after
reviewing the citations of this paper.
MLA/APA/AMA Citation:
Lee, Y. K., & Chang, C. T. (2007). Who gives what to charity? Characteristics
affecting donation behavior. Social Behavior and Personality: an international
journal, 35(9), 1173-1180.
Source Validation: This source is by Yu-Kang Lee and Chun-Tuan Chang who are both
professors at the Department of Business Management in the National Sun Yat-sen
University, Taiwan.
How did you find this source?: I found this source on Google Scholar.
Intended audience: This research paper is to publish the result of a studies done and to
share the data and analysis of the experiment with other researchers and scholars of the
same field.
What arguments/topics does this source discuss?: This is a social study in Taiwan
about the demographics, socioeconomic factors, and the psychology of charity donors.
These factors are studied to see what affects individuals to donate and how. This study
also compares itself with previous results of surveys done in western countries. The
authors decided to conduct this experiment in Taiwan because it grew rapidly after the
1980s through a phase of political liberalization and economic expansion. In Taiwan,
independent donors are the majority of donations contributors. The study included
extrinsic factors, such as age, gender, education, income, marital status, family loading,
and intrinsic factors, like social awareness, social responsibility, empathy. A telephone
survey was conducted with 730 interviews where 45% are volunteers and 72% donated to
charity at least once a year. The results of the study shows that the motivation for
volunteering are mostly intrinsic while the motivation for monetary donations are
extrinsic. While family loading, social awareness, social responsibility, and empathy all

correlate positively with volunteering, income has an inverse relationship with

volunteering, same as my other research.
Minimum 3 quotes, paraphrases, summaries of source text that seem likely to be
helpful in future writing:
Variables related to collectivism and altruism in the Asian context- such as
Confucianism and Buddhism- can be incorporated to boost charitable giving.
Men are more likely to donate to political groups, civil rights groups, and arts
and cultural organizations while women are more likely to support services for
homeless and medical and healthcare charities.
Charities could use the marketing efforts more effectively by incorporating the
psychographic profiles into the target market strategies.

Source H
I first spent 30 minutes watching the 20 min Ted Talk by Dan Pallotta and paused to take
notes in between. Then, I read and took notes on three other articles that analyzed and
summarized his Ted Talk and it took about 50 minutes. This was particularly important to
my research because it is basically the advocacy I want to have for my Spring Action.
This source also contains many other organizations that I looked into.
MLA/APA/AMA Citation:
May, K. (2014, March 13). Correcting the overhead myth: How Dan Pallotta's
TED Talk has begun to change the conversation. Ted Blog.
Source Validation: Dan Pallotta is a well known speaker, author, reformer, inventor of
the multi-day charitable event industry, founder of the Charity Defense Council and an
human rights activist.
How did you find this source?: Dan Pallotta first appeared in a Path Appears, a previous
source, and when I did more research on him I found his TED talk along with three more
articles revolving around his presentation.
Intended audience: The intended audience is for every donor and potential donor to be
more aware and donate smarter.

 What arguments/topics does this source discuss?:

How to pick the charity thats right for you
This first article on the Ted Blog introduces Dan Pallotta and his success
with the long distance cycling for HIV/AIDs, raising $108 million in 8
years, and Breast Cancer 3 Day Walk, raising $194 in less than 8 years.
However his organization was forced to shut down after press criticism
about the management of the organization. One thing used today to
measure charity is how much money goes to the people compared to how
much goes to overhead. Most people think the best charities are the ones
with the lowest overhead, while low overhead may prevent charities from
making any real impact.
Picking a charity should be a long a strenuous effort paired with research
and phone calls. Using websites such as GreatNonprofits.org,
Philantropedia, and GiveWell.org can help but donors should never rely
on them. Donors can also compare organizations with successful ones like
Invisible Children and Charity Water. They should also check the progress
of the organization on their cause.
New ways to judge nonprofits
There are five ways listed in this article about how to evaluate nonprofits.
1. The salary of the hired workers. Nonprofit workers should not have to
compensate to work for a cause and low wages might mean that the
organization is not doing well. 2. The advertising and marketing of a
nonprofit. The organization should have awareness and communicate with
the public. 3. They are not afraid to try new things. Many nonprofits dont
change the way they use charity because the public doesnt accept any
failures from charitable organizations. 4. Wait. Most people dont give
time to new nonprofits becuase they expect immediate results even though
the successful Amazon.com took 4 years to return a profit. 5. Nonprofits

doesnt have to be completely separated from economics. More interest

driven organizations are generating more revenues for their causes.
Correcting the Overhead Myth
The overhead myth is the misconception of donors that a higher
overhead is bad. On the contrary, the overhead can be thought of as people
working for a charitable cause and earning a wage from working day and
night.
Minimum 3 quotes, paraphrases, summaries of source text that seem likely to be
helpful in future writing:
350 employees lost their jobs because they were counted overhead, says Pallotta
on today's talk, given at TED 2013. This is what happens when we confuse
morality with frugality.
We have two rule books- one for the nonprofit sector and one for the rest of the
economic world. Its an apartheid.
Business will move the mass of humanity forward, but will always leave behind
that 10% of the most disadvantaged and unlucky, he says which is why we
need philanthropy and nonprofits. But couldnt the nonprofit sector use the same
strategies as the business world to grow their profits and give more money to the
needy? After all, says Pallotta, How do you monetize the prevention of violence
against women?
The nonprofit sector as we know it isnt working. In the United States, poverty
has been stuck at 12% for the last 40 years. Homelessness has not been solved in
any major city, and we have no cure for cancer.
Both went out of business because of public outrage that his organization spent
40% of its gross on so-called overheadthings like staffing, marketing and
creating a great experience for those who participated. Pallotta says the backlash
was a result of a fundamental assumption about charities: That they are supposed
to keep overhead low. But as Pallotta says in his talk, this is not a standard that
businesses are held to.

Source I
I spent 5 hours on this source because how many pages it has (about 30). I took detailed
notes while reading. After finishing this source, I also went on and navigated the website
such as trying out the Giving Calculator and looking at my local charities on the
website to see the rating. This website also has partnerships with local community
organizations.
MLA/APA/AMA Citation:
Charity Navigator. (2016). Tips for Donors. Charity Navigator.
Source Validation: This source this by Charity Navigator which is an American
independent charity watchdog organization that evaluates charitable organizations in the
United States.
How did you find this source?: I was first introduced to the website in my previous
research and when I looked deeper into the organization I found articles that could help
potential donors.
Intended audience: The intended audience is for individual donors to choose the right
charity to donate to.
What arguments/topics does this source discuss?: This has many tabs each linked to
different articles educating the donors to make smart donation choices. It begins with a
donors bill of rights listing every right that a donor has and charities should grant to
donors. It calls upon donors to be proactive and do their homework before donating, like
checking for the 501(c)(3) status, avoid sound alike names, review compensation, and
having an interview. The article also brings up the important issue of telemarketers as
middlemen in charity. When given the chance to donate on phone, a donor should always
avoid that and donate directly to the organization to give 100% of his or her donation.
Before buying charity affiliated product, a donor should always consider if this is a real
partnership or bandwagon sales technique, the charity affiliated, and whether or not this
product is really needed. You should never buy something you dont need. For an
emergency or crisis, there are other things a donor must do or consider such as: give to
an established charity, designate your investment, avoid telemarketers, do not send

supplies, be careful of Email solicitations, and consider the nature of the charitys work.
The website also gives donors questions to ask organizations they are donating to as well
as a guide to volunteering and donating non cash objects. Charity Navigator also raises
awareness about online scams and giving for the elderly. The Charity Navigator also
provides a calculator and analysis for the donors based on their income
Minimum 3 quotes, paraphrases, summaries of source text that seem likely to be
helpful in future writing:
89% of consumers would be likely to switch brands (if quality and price held
constant) for one that's affiliated with a charity, compared with 80% in 2010 and
66% in 1993.
54% of consumers bought a product with a social and/or environmental benefit,
compared with 41% in 2010 and 20% in 1993.
Wise donors don't drop money into canisters at the checkout counter or hand over
cash to solicitors outside the supermarket. Situations like these are irresistible to
scam artists who wish to take advantage of your goodwill. Smart givers only
support groups granted tax-exempt status under section 501(c) (3) of the Internal
Revenue Code.
Knowing that people are desperately in need of basic supplies like food, water and
shelter, it is hard not to want to pack up and send a box of supplies. But this type
of philanthropy is simply not practical or efficient. Even if mail could get to an
impacted region, no one is set up to receive these goods, much less organize and
distribute them to the victims.
Once you feel comfortable with the charity, send the organization a check directly
in the mail, thus ensuring 100% of your gift goes to the charity and not the
for-profit fundraiser.
A gift to a qualified charitable organization may entitle you to a charitable
contribution deduction against your income tax if you itemize deductions. If the
gifts are deductible, the actual cost of the donation is reduced by your tax savings.

For example, if you are in the 33% tax bracket, the actual cost of a $100 donation
is only $67 ($100 less the $33 tax savings).
Total giving to charitable organizations was $373.25 billion in 2015 (2.1% of
GDP). This is an increase of 4.1% in current dollars and 4% in inflation-adjusted
dollars from 2014.
This is the sixth straight year that giving has increased and the second straight
record-setting year, following 2014s total of $358.38 billion.
Comparing GDP growth and change in charitable giving over 2010-2015, the
average increase in giving to charitable causes (3.6%) is greater than the growth
of GDP (2%).
This Bill of Rights for charitable givers was developed by the following four
industry experts: American Association of Fund Raising Counsel, Association for
Healthcare Philanthropy, Council for Advancement and Support of Education,
National Society of Fund Raising Executives. It is industry-accepted and all
quality charities should subscribe to the beliefs espoused here.