4. Results
4.3 Robustness checks
branding for national as well as international organizations, which might indicate that the no former donor group mostly relies on the CBF brand when performing the act of giving.
Overall, the personally known category with high percentages for the no donor and regular donor appears to be of major importance to all groups which indicates that personal ties or familiarity, not meaning individuals from the inner circle, are most important to donors.
The reason why non-regular donors are scoring lesser on certain options may indicate that these people, who are giving incidentally, do not go too deeply into the considerations for donating and seem not to display certain need for bounding with an ngo.
individuals could respond negatively, which may represent a bias for the treatment questions as people tend to give positive answers.
An unforeseen bias is how people regard financial information. When financial people look at the treatments and the way in how this research was set up, the researchers being financials themselves, consider the neutral treatment and the negative treatment not as a very positive performance. Upon studying the four treatment groups to detect which type of treatment was able to collect most donations or/and highest amounts from individuals, the upper columns representing the dependent variable TotalAmountNewDonations in table 8 reveals that the no donor and non-regular donor groups tend to give as much to treatment groups 2 and 3 as to the other ‘better’ treatment group 1 and the no treatment group 4.
Although we added explanatory text to the treatments with the graphs, an explanation to this ‘flaw’ in judgement from respondents could derive from not paying enough attention by going too fast through the survey or just not understanding the graph or what was written.
This was also addressed by McNemar and Quinn (1946, p. 318) who investigated opinions and attitudes and addressed the fact that the researcher and the user of the survey must mean the same thing to arrive at reliable data.
We would also not single out the fact that, regardless the circumstance (treatment or no treatment), individuals indicated to give small amounts to perform a good act by
contributing to charity, which holds no consequences in real life by missing cash from their budget. After all, we need to keep in mind that our research still concerns an experiment where individuals are asked to perform imagined behaviour and essentially are not really performing the act.
5 Conclusion
In our survey we found no statistical evidence that different types of donor value project performance differently. Going through the collected sample data and upon studying the initial four treatment groups that generated donations, we found interesting results for giving behaviour of no donors and non-regular donors which we addressed in the former paragraph.
From this table 8 we can also find, for further research, an indication on how regular donors respond to the treatment groups 1, 2 and 3 while they appear to be favouring group 4 (no treatment) while the t-test from table 6 showed no significance between the no treatment group (presented by group 4) and treatment group (presented by groups 1, 2 and 3).
Overall, charity organizations are reluctant to be transparent about failures. Part of their reluctancy might be that giving is based upon trust and that trust is embedded in the
charities’ culture. On the other hand, more control could attribute to better control of the financial risks involved in projects. Although not always the largest group of stakeholders, private donors are entitled to know how successful a charity organization is in performing the projects they are spending their budget on.
Our research mainly contributed to analysing the behaviour of regular donors. While the sample for this group was largely enough, we found no statistical evidence that regular donors adjusted their donations to the type of treatment. The outcome from this research informs us about the ties that regular donors have with charity organizations and the trust they display when asked for a contribution.
What we also learnt from this survey and what is confirmed by literature, is that donors respond to new information. While being an experiment, our survey elicited donations from different type of donors and no (former) donors, meaning that charity organizations can be creative in their pursuit of generating donations from future donors.
While not only the larger charity organizations in the Netherlands are benefitting from lotteries like the Nationale Postcode Loterij and Vriendenloterij, other charities in need of funds should warmly welcome the initial smaller donations they receive from young
individuals and should gradually trying to engage into a relationship where the focus is not on collecting fund because they lack income, but e.g. attributing time or ideas.
This research is limited to The Netherlands. Due to cultural differences, the research may not be applicable to other countries but gives us insight in the giving behaviour of individuals and may invite charities to be a little more open about the risks they are
undertaking. As private donors show their trust by donating their resources, charities could mirror the trust by showing more transparency on the performance of projects.
References
Agyemang, G., O'Dwyer, B., Unerman, J. & Awumbila, M. (2017). Seeking "conversations for accountability": Mediating the impact of non-governmental organizations (NGO) upward accountability processes. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 30(5), 982-1007.
Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behaviour. In Kuhl, J. &
Beckman, J. (Eds), Action-control (pp. 11-39). Germany: Springer-Verlag.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behaviour. From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behaviour. In Kuhl, J. & Beckman, J. (Eds.). Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211.
Anderson, A.R. & Miller, C.J. (2003). Class matters: Human and social capital in the entrepreneurial process. Journal of Socio-Economics, 32, 17-36.
Andreoni, J. (1989). Giving with Impure Altruism: Applications to Charity and Ricardian Equivalence. Journal of Political Economy, 97(6), 1447-1458.
Andreoni, J., Brown, E. & Rischall, I. (2003). Charitable giving by married couples. Who decides and why does it matter? Journal of Human Resources, 38(1), 111-133.
Armitage, C. & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 471-499.
Bekkers, R. (2003). Giving and volunteering in the Netherlands: Sociological and psychological perspectives. Utrecht, Netherlands: Utrecht University.
Bekkers, R. (2003). Trust, accreditation, and philantropy in the Netherlands. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 32(4), 596-615.
Bekkers, R. & Wiepking, Pamela. (2011). A Literature Review of Empiral Studies of
philanthrophy: Eight Mechanisma That Drive Charitable Giving. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(5), 924-973.
Bekkers, R., Wit, A. de Wit, & Felix, S. (2017, July 14). Twenty years of Generosity in the Netherlands. Retrieved from https://osf.io/9zyh4/
Belastingdienst. (n.d.). Gegevens van een ANBI publiceren op internet. Retrieved from Belastingdienst.nl:
https://www.belastingdienst.nl/wps/wcm/connect/bldcontentnl/belastingdienst/zakelijk/bijz ondere_regelingen/goede_doelen/algemeen_nut_beogende_instellingen/gegevens_van_een _anbi_publiceren_op_een_internetsite
Belastingdienst. (n.d.). Wanneer moet een stichting, vereniging of vergelijkbare organisatie aangifte doen? Retrieved from Belastingdienst.nl:
https://www.belastingdienst.nl/wps/wcm/connect/bldcontentnl/belastingdienst/zakelijk/win st/vennootschapsbelasting/belastingplicht_en_aangifte/wanneer_moet_een_stichting_vereni ging_of_vergelijkbare_organisatie_aangifte_doen/wanneer_aangifte_vpb_doen
Bendapudi, N., Singh, S.N. & Bendapudi, V. (1996). Enhancing Helping Behaviour: An Integrative Framework for Promotion Planning. Journal of Marketing, 60(3), 33-49.
Berry, L.L. (1983). Relationship Marketing. In Shostack, L.G. & Upah, G.D. (Eds.), Emerging Perspectives on Services Marketing. American Marketing Association.
Berry, L.L. (2002). Relationship Marketing of Services Perspectives from 1983 and 2000.
Journal of Relationship Marketing, 1(1), 59-77.
Bohnet, I. & Zeckhauser, R. (2004). Trust, risk and betrayal. Journal of Economic Behaviour
& Organization, 55, 467-484.
Breman, A. (2011). Give more tomorrow: Two field experiments on altruism and intertemporal choice. Journal of Public Economics, 95(11), 1349-1357.
Brennan, L. & Brady, E. (1999). Relating to marketing: why relationship marketing works for not-for-profit organisations. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 4(4), 327-337.
CBF. (2008). Het CBF verstrekt vier nieuwe keurmerken, verlengt twee keurmerken. Toetsing volgens nieuw Reglement CBF-Keur. Retrieved from cbf.nl:
https://www.cbf.nl/persberichten/3935/Het-CBF-verstrekt-vier-nieuwe-keurmerken-verlengt-twee-keurmerken-Toetsing-volgens-nieuw-Reglement-CBF-Keur
CBF. (2020). Over CBF. Retrieved from cbf.nl: https://www.cbf.nl/over-cbf
CBF. (2020). Reglement en Bijlagen, CBF-Erkenning Goededoelenorganisaties. Retrieved from cbf.nl: https://www.cbf.nl/uploads/publications/reglement-en-bijlagen-cbf-erkenning-vastgesteld-19-november-2018-web.a55c7b.pdf
CBF. (2021). Erkenning. Retrieved from cbf.nl: https://www.cbf.nl/waarom-kiezen-voor-de-erkenning
CBS. (2020). Loonkloof mannen en vrouwen blijft slinken. Retrieved from cbs.nl:
https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/nieuws/2020/18/loonkloof-mannen-en-vrouwen-blijft-slinken CBS. (2020). Steeds meer ouderen maken gebruik van sociale media. Retrieved from CBS.nl:
https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/nieuws/2020/04/steeds-meer-ouderen-maken-gebruik-van-sociale-media
Cialdini, R., Reno, R.R. & Kallgren, C.A. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct:
Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 1015-1026.
Commissie Code Goed Bestuur voor Goede Doelen. (2005). Advies van de Commissie Code Goed Gestuur voor Goede Doelen. Retrieved from kennisbankfilantroppie.nl:
https://www.kennisbankfilantropie.nl/docs/handig-voor-stichtingen/code-wijffels-goed-bestuur.pdf?sfvrsn=2
Cordaid. (2017). Cordaid Annual Report. Retrieved from cordaid.org:
https://www.cordaid.org/nl/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2018/11/Cordaid-Jaarverslag-2017_final.pdf
Cordery, C., Sim, D. & van Zijl, T. (2017). Differentiated Regulation: The Case of Charities.
Accounting and Finance, 51(1), 131-164.
Cryder, C., Loewenstein, G. & Seltman, H. (2013). Goal gradient in helping behaviour.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(6), 1078-1083.
De Wit, A. & Bekkers, R. (2016). Exploring Gender Differences in Charitable Giving:
The Dutch Case. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 45(4), 741-761.
De Wit, A. & Bekkers, R. (2020). Can Charitable Donations Compensate for a Reduction in Government Funding? Public Administration Review, 80(2).
DellaVigna, S., List, J. & Malmendier, U. (2012). Testing for Altruism and Social Pressure in Charitable Giving. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 127(1), 1-56.
Duflo, E. (2004). Scaling up and Evaluation. Annual World Bank Conference on Development Economics. World Bank.
Ebrahim, A. (2003). World Development, 31(5), 813-829.
Ek, C. (2017). Some Causes Are More Equal than Others? The Effect of Similarity on Substitution in Charitable Giving. Journal of Economic Behaviour & Organization, 136(April), 45-62.
Erlandsson, A., Björklund, F. & Bäckström, M. (2014). Perceived Utility (not sympathy) mediates the proportion dominance effect in helping decisions. Journal of Behavioural Decision Making, 27(1), 37-47.
Faraz, H.Z. & Danish, A. (2019). https://papers.ssrn.com. Retrieved from SSRN Papers:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3444113
Field, A. (2016). In Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (p. 915).
London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Foster Parents Plan: het verhaal achter het 'schandaal'. (2021).
Retrieved from planinternational.nl: https://www.planinternational.nl/over-plan/foster-parents-plan-schandaal
Fry, R. (1995). Accountability in organizational life: problem or opportunity for non-profits?
Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 6(2), 181-195.
Funraise.org, & Nptechforgood.com. (2020). Global Trends in Giving Report.
Retrieved from Funraise.org/giving-report:
https://assets-global.website- files.com/5da60733afec9db1fb998273/5f5f8fedbd440fd3e98de74c_2020-Giving-Report-English.pdf
Funraise.org & Nptechforgood.com. (2020). https://www.funraise.org/giving-report.
Retrieved from https://www.funraise.org/giving-report: https://assets-global.website- files.com/5da60733afec9db1fb998273/5f5f8fedbd440fd3e98de74c_2020-Giving-Report-English.pdf
Goede Doelen Nederland. (2020). Richtlijn Financieel Beheer Goede Doelen.
Retrieved from goededoelennederland.nl:
https://www.goededoelennederland.nl/system/files/public/Bedrijfsvoering/1706%20Richtlij n%20Financieel%20Beheer%20Goede%20Doelen.pdf
Greenpeace. (2019). Jaarverslag Greenpeace Nederland 2019.
Retrieved from greenpeace.org:
https://www.greenpeace.org/nl/greenpeace/40990/jaarverslag-greenpeace-nederland-2019/
Grenzen, A. z. (2017). Artsen zonder grenzen Jaarverslag 2017/Financien.
Retrieved from artsenzondergrenzen.nl:
https://onlinemagazine.artsenzondergrenzen.nl/jaarverslag-2017#!/financien
Holding Nationale Goede Doelen Loterijen. (2021). Governance Holding Nationale Goede Doelen Loterijen. Retrieved from postcodeloterij.nl: https:www.postcodeloterij.nl/over-ons/regels-en-toezicht/governance-holding
Honig, D. & Weaver, C. (2019). A Race to the Top? The Aid Transparency Index and the Social Power of Global Performance Indicators. International Organization, 73(3), 579-610.
Hyndman, N. & McConville, D. (2018). Trust and accountability in UK charities: Exploring the virtuous circle. The British Accounting Review, 50(2), 227-237.
James, R. (2017). Natural philanthropy: a new evolutionary framework explaining diverse experimental results and informing fundraising practice, 17050(3).
Jensen, M. (2001). Foundations of organizational strategy. Foundations of organizational strategy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kahneman, D. (2003, December). Maps of Bounded Rationality: Psychology for Behavioural Economics. The American Economic Review, 93(5), 1449-1475.
Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk.
Econometrica, 47, 263-291.
Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, values and frames. The American Psychologist, 39, 341-350.
Kankerbestrijding, K. (2021). Retrieved from Steun mensen met kanker:
https://www.kwf.nl/donatie/doneren?utm_source=sea-284&gclid=Cj0KCQjwu7OIBhCsARIsALxCUaN1DqL74f_mvxVLDsXSzrOYavTUsFn3n Qqjr2qwZWlqsrcuU9iB7rcaAmLAEALw_wcB
Karlan, D. & Wood, D. (2017). The effect of effectiveness: Donor response to aid effectiveness in a direct mail fundraising experiment. Journal of behavioural and Experimental Economics, 66, 1-8.
Kearns, K.P. (1994). The strategic management of accountability in nonprofit organizations:
an analytical framework. Public Administration Review, 54, 185-192.
Kelman, H.C. (1961). Processes of Opinion Change. Public Opinion Quarterly, 25(1), 57-78.
Kerzner, H. (2009). Project Management, a systems approach to planning, scheduling and controlling. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Koriat, A., Goldsmith, M. & Pansky, A. (2000). Toward a psychology of memory accuracy.
Annual Review of Psychology, 51, pp. 481-537.
KWF. (2019). Jaarverslag 2019 KWF Kanker Bestrijding. Retrieved from kwf.nl:
https://www.kwf.nl/sites/default/files/2020-06/KWF%20Jaarverslag%202019.pdf Lee, L., Piliavin, J.A. & Call, V.R. (1999). Giving time, money, and blood:
Similarities and differences. Social Psychology Quarterly, 62, 276-291.
MacNeil, I. R. (1980). The New Social Contract: An inquiry Into Modern Contractual Relations. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.
Marketingtribune.nl. (2018). Seksschandalen schaden imago alle goede doelen.
Retrieved from Marketingtribune.nl:
https://www.marketingtribune.nl/algemeen/nieuws/2018/03/seksschandalen-schaden-im/index.xml
Mayer, R., Davis, J. & Schoorman, F.D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust.
Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709-734.
McNemar, Q. (1946). Opion-Attitude Methodology. Psychological Bulletin, 43(4), 289-374.
Meer, J. (2011). Brother, can you spare a dime? Peer pressure in charitable solicitation.
Journal of Public Economics, 95, 926-941.
Morgan, R. & Hunt, S. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing.
Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20-38.
Nationale Postcode Loterij. (2021). Jaarverslag 2019 van de Nationale Postcode Loterij.
Retrieved from Postcodeloterij.nl: https://www.postcodeloterij.nl/over-ons/jaarverslagen NBA. (2012). Goed doel, goed verhaal. Retrieved from nba.nl:
https://www.nba.nl/themas/kennis-delen-en-pml/goed-doel-goed-verhaal/
Novib, O. (2018). Oxfam Novib Annual Accounts 2017-2018. Retrieved from oxfamnovib.nl:
https://www.oxfamnovib.nl/Files/rapporten/2018/Jaarverslag/OX-18-01%20Annual%20Accounts-WT_online_correcties%20september.pdf
Novib, O. (2019). Oxfam Novib Annual Report 2018-2019.
Retrieved from Oxfamnovib.nl:
https://www.oxfamnovib.nl/Files/rapporten/2019/Jaarverslag/OxfamNovib%20Annual%20 Report%202018_2019_online.pdf
Null, C. (2011). Warm Glow, Information, and Inefficient Charitable Giving.
Journal of Public Economics, 95(5), 455-65.
O'Dwyer, B. & Boomsma, R. (2015). The co-construction of NGO accountability.
Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 28(1), 36-68.
O'Dwyer, B. & Unerman, J. (2008). The paradox of greater NGO accountability: A case study of Amnesty Ireland. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 7-8(33), 801-824.
OECD. (2019). Official Development Assistance (ODA). Retrieved from OECD.org:
https://www.oecd.org/dac/financing-sustainable-development/development-finance-standards/official-development-assistance.htm
Oxfamnovib. (2021). Ja, ik help mee! Retrieved from Oxfamnovib.nl:
https://secure.oxfamnovib.nl/algemeen?_ga=2.148101303.1073976264.1628262948-223387316.1628262948&_gac=1.25157064.1628264466.Cj0KCQjwu7OIBhCsARIsALxC UaMjOBPBtM_1pK41JGN3TVcoYIghfYhlsPvLwylmlP8Z9wBavmbtOAMaAv52EALw_
wcB
Pace, R.C. (1949). Opinion and Action: A Study in Validity of 'Attitude Measurement'.
American Psychologist, 4, 411-419.
Parker, D., Manstead, A.S.R. & Stradling, S.G. (1995). Extending the theory of planned behaviour: The role of personal norm. British Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 127-138.
Pegtel, A. (2003). Vijfhonderd jaar armoedebestrijding.
Retrieved from www.historischnieuwsblad.nl:
https://www.historischnieuwsblad.nl/vijfhonderd-jaar-armoedebestrijding/
Peng, S., Kim, M. & Deat, F. (2019). The Effects of Nonprofit Reputation on Charitable Giving: A Survey Experiment. Voluntas, 30, 811-827.
Prakash, A. & Gugerty, M.K. (2010). Trust but verify? Voluntary regulation programs in the nonprofit sector. Regulation and Governance, 4, 22-47.
Prolific. (2021). Retrieved from Prolific: https://www.prolific.co
Publish What You Fund. (2021, MarcH 24). Aid Transparency Index.
Retrieved from Publishwhatyoufund.org: publishwhatyoufund.org/the-index/2020/
Publish What You Fund. (2021, March 24). With Publication Comes Responsibility.
Retrieved from www.publishwhatyoufund.org: http://www.publishwhatyoufund.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/With-Publication-Brings-Responsibility-A-discussion-paper.pdf Putnam, R. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community.
New York: Simon and Schuster.
PWC.nl. (2017). De Transparantprijs. Retrieved from pwc.nl:
https://www.pwc.nl/nl/transparantprijs.html
Read, D., Loewenstein, G. & Rabin, M. (1998). 'Choice bracketing'. unpublished working paper. Carnegie Mellon University.
Reinstein, D. (2006). Does One Contribution Come at the Expense of Another? Empirical Evidence on Substitution between Charitable Donations. Discussion Paper 618.
Reinstein, D. & Riener, Gerhard. (2012). Decomposing desert and tangibility effects in a charitable giving experiment. Experimental Economics, 15(1), 229-240.
Reno, R., Cialdini, R.B. & Kallgren, C.A. (1993). The transitional influence of social norms.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 104-112.
Rooney, P. M., Brown, E. & Mesch, D. (2007). A study of charitable giving by married couples. International Journal of Educational Advancement, 7, 229-242.
Sargeant, A. (2001, Winter). Relationship Fundraising; How to Keep Donors Loyal.
Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 12(2), 177-192.
Sargeant, A. & Woodliffe, L. (2007). Gift giving: an interdisciplinary review. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 12(4), 275-307.
Saxton, G.D. & Wang, L. (2014). The Social Network Effect: The Determinants of Giving Through Social Media. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 5(43), 850-868.
Schiff, J. (1990). Charitable Giving and Government Policy: Charitable Giving and Government Policy: An Economic Analysis. Westport, CT, U.S.A.: Greenwood Press.
Schlegelmilch, B.B. (1988). Targeting of Fund-Raising Appeals How to Identify Donors.
European Journal of Marketing, 22(1), 31-40.
Schulpen, L. (2016). Vice Versa, the NGO funding game.
Retrieved from hetnieuwe.viceversaonline.nl:
https://hetnieuwe.viceversaonline.nl/2016/04/21/the-ngo-funding-game/
Schulpen, L. & van Kempen, L. (2020). Publicaties. Retrieved from cbf.nl:
https://www.cbf.nl/uploads/publications/200227-schulpen-and-van-kempen-de-ontleding-van-de-nederlandse-ngo-sector.7c0fb5.pdf
Small, D., Loewenstein, G. & Slovic, P. (2007). Sympathy and callousness: The impact of deliberative thought on donations to identifiable and statistical victims. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 102(2), 143-153.
Smith, J. R. & McSweeney, A. (2007). Charitable Giving: The Effectiveness of a Revised Theory of Planned Behaviour Model in Predicting Donating Intentions and Behaviour.
Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 17, 363-386.
Spira, L. & Page, M. (2002). Risk management, The reinvention of internal control and the changing role of internal audit. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 16(4), 640-661.
Thaler, R.H. (1999). Mental Accounting Matters. Journal of Behavioural Decision Making, 12(3), 183-206.
Uslaner, E. (2002). The moral foundations of trust. Cambridge. MA: Cambridge University Press.
Van Iwaarden, J. & Van der Wiele, T. (2009). How important is performance?
International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 26(1), 5-22.
Verkaik, D. (2018). Do Donors Really care About Impact Information? A Dual Process Account. Paper prepared for the digital knowledge center of the Central Bureau on Fundraising (CBF) (p. 49). Amsterdam: Center For Philanthropic Studies VU University.
Webb, D., Green, C.L. & Brashear, T.G. (2000). Development and validation of scales to measure attitudes influencing monitory donations to charitable organizations'. Academy of Marketing Science, 28(2), 299-309.
Wiepking, P. & Bekkers, R. (2010). Does who decides really matter? Causes and consequences of personal financial management in the case of larger and structural charitable donations. Voluntas, 21, 240-263.
Woord en Daad. (2021). Sponsor een kind. Retrieved from woordendaad.nl:
https://www.woordendaad.nl/sponsor-een-kind/?ads&gclid=CjwKCAjwxuuCBhATEiwAIIIz0fTftPend9FL7Km4hY8GTDujPs8v4h Ne63aTZTejAMta07UcOJ48bRoCWFwQAvD_BwE
World Vision. (2021). Kindsponsoring. Retrieved from worldvision.nl:
https://www.worldvision.nl/kindsponsoring
Yang, C., Northcott, D. & Sinclair, R. (2017). The accountability information needs of key charity funders. Public Money & Management, 37(3), 173-180.
6 Appendices
Appendix 1: Comparison of Dutch Ngo’s by Year of Founding and Income in €