Strategies Leaders in a Canadian Charity Use to Maintain Donors’ Trust and Ensure Continued Donations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Eroded public trust and financial support threaten charity organizations' sustainability. Charity directors are concerned with eroding trust as lack of confidence adversely impacts the economic lives of disadvantaged communities. Grounded in Stewart’s ladder of accountability theory and Alderfer’s existence, relatedness, and growth theory, the purpose of this qualitative single case study was to explore strategies charitable organizations’ leaders use to maintain donors’ trust and ensure continued donations. The participants were five charity directors who used strategies to maintain donors’ trust and ensure ongoing donations. Data were collected using semistructured interviews and document reviews. Through Braun and Clarke's six-step thematic analysis, six significant themes were identified: accountability, transparency, government funding, having good policies in place, meeting donors’ psychological needs to donate, and working with affiliated charities. A key recommendation for charity leaders is to adopt and maintain accountability and transparency best practices, including the availability and disclosure of annual independent audited financial statements to minimize scandals and misappropriation of funds, safeguard resources, maintain donors’ trust, and ensure continued donations. The implications for positive social change include the potential to implement charitable programs and activities to improve the local community's educational, social, and economic lives of disadvantaged people.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".