Evaluating Public Charity Websites

• Published date: 01 June 2017
• Author: Alan S. Abrahams,Kristin Kirk
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/nml.21256
• Date: 01 June 2017

475

N M  L, vol. 27, no. 4, Summer 2017 © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/nml.21256

Journal sponsored by the Jack, Joseph and Morton Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences, Case Western Reserve University.

Evaluating Public Charity Websites

STAGE MODEL VERSUS AUTOMATED SERVICE

Kristin Kirk , Alan S. Abrahams

Virginia Tech

In this study, we explore nonprofit website development by applying two different types

of website assessment tools to US charity websites. One instrument is theoretically based

in nonprofit tendencies; the other is a commercial automated service. The results of these

evaluation tools are further analyzed to determine whether the instruments are sufficiently

independent for evaluation of nonprofit websites. The results illuminate differences in the

assessment tools, finding them to be complementary. Each method offers different insights

into website development deficiencies and avenues for improvement.

Keywords: nonprofit , charity , website , technology adoption , stage model

NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS ARE COMMITTED to socially and publicly beneficial mis-

sions as dictated by their 501(c)(3) tax exemption status. Because of increases in Internet pen-

etration and usage across the globe, as well as an influx of accessible, low-cost website building

tools, websites are critical platforms for nonprofits (McPherson 2007 ). Website visitors and

online donations to charitable organizations continue to rise (M + R 2016 ). Nonprofits can use

websites to establish an online presence, build their brand, develop a community, reach new

audiences, increase their revenue, connect with volunteers, and communicate with stakehold-

ers. Evaluating websites’ quality and success is thus important to researchers and practitioners

in the field of nonprofit management. Our research explores two evaluation instruments that

can be applied to nonprofit websites, how the instruments results relate to each other, and

what this means for nonprofit website evaluation.

Although there has been notable research on the adoption of websites by nonprofits (Clerkin

and Grønbjerg 2007 ; Manzo and Pitken 2007 ) and other types of information technology

(Hackler and Saxton 2007 ; McNutt 2007 ; Wolpert and Seley 2007 ), nonprofit technology

research has moved toward focusing on particular online elements, such as the use of social

media (Curtis et al. 2010 ; Guo and Saxton 2014 ; Lovejoy and Saxton 2012 ; Maxwell and

Carboni 2016 ; Nah and Saxton 2012 ; Waters et al. 2009 ) and online fundraising (Bennett

2009 ; Burt and Gibbons 2011 ; Read 2013 ; Shier and Handy 2012 ).

Websites are still important to study because they are a relatively low-cost platform for com-

munication among stakeholders. Even with the influx of social media, the public still looks

Correspondence to: Kristin Kirk, Virginia Tech—SPIA, c/o Krystal Wright School of Public and International Aff airs

(0113), Blacksburg, VA 24060. E-mail: kckirk@vt.edu.

Nonprofi t Management & Leadership DOI: 10.1002/nml

476 KIRK, ABRAHAMS

for nonprofit websites (Nielson 2011 ). Innovations in technology have made new, low-cost,

and easy-to-understand tools and templates available, enabling any organization to cre-

ate robust websites (Hooper and Stobart 2003 ). Research now needs to take into account

advances in technology that have allowed websites to transform from static or flat brochure-

ware pages into dynamic and robust interactive marketing and fundraising platforms.

Users are expecting more; managers and website developers need to be conscious of those

expectations (Waite, Harrison, and Hunter 2011 ). Organizations that use the Internet

and websites have been found to achieve higher organizational growth than those that do

not (Eimhjellen, Wollebæk, and Strømsnes 2014 ). If nonprofits fail to take advantage of

advanced technologies expected by users, the organizations may be negatively affected. For

example, if a visitor cannot find an easy way to donate, the nonprofit may lose the opportu-

nity to collect funds. A visitor who cannot find a way to get involved may look for another

organization, and the nonprofit may lose a potential volunteer. A nonprofit that wants to

raise awareness on a particular subject but only has large downloadable educational PDFs

(portable document formats) may not be communicating its message effectively. Nonprofits

thus can benefit from carefully designing and maintaining their websites.

Measuring the success of a website, consumer or charitable based, however, is difficult (Zvi-

ran, Glezer, and Avni 2006 ). Evaluation tools for businesses include research-based indexes

like WebQual (Loiacono, Watson, and Goodhue 2007 ) and expensive usability tests (Hasan,

Morris, and Probets 2013 ). Using Web metrics is an easier, less expensive option, but hosts

incomplete data and unstandardized interpretations (Weischedel and Huizingh 2006 ).

Another approach is the burgeoning, fee-based automated services. These services, such as

Sitebeam and Woorank, analyze website logs or Hypertext Markup Language (HTML) codes

and provide standardized scores based on consumer websites and marketing experience.

Evaluating nonprofit websites is even more complex because of the multiple stakeholders, bottom

lines, and goals. A successful nonprofit website must have effective design that allows the orga-

nization to communicate a clear message and engage audiences, which may include interactivity

and online fundraising. Research, however, has not yet developed a comprehensive, well-tested

index or structure for analyzing nonprofit websites. Nonprofits may conduct self-assessments of

their websites or adapt consumer-orientated approaches, such as attempting to interpret analytics

or purchasing costly third-party, consumer-based usability surveys or automated tests.

In attempting to overcome the absence of a comprehensive nonprofit website evaluation

framework, Kirk, Abrahams, and Ractham (2016a , 2016b) adapted a stage model that had

previously been used to evaluate e-governments (Alfarraj, Drew, and AlGhamdi 2011 ; United

Nations 2008 , 2010 ) and businesses (Rotchanakitumnuai, Kaewkitipong, and Ractham 2011 ;

Zhu, Basil, and Hunter 2009 ). The model provides an overview of website development by

classifying nonprofit websites into stage levels, starting as a basic tool for communication dis-

semination and moving toward sophisticated business integration. The model provides details

within each stage that nonprofits can adapt for their particular needs. These indicators are

easily quantifiable, a benefit for nonprofits conducting a self-assessment or benchmarking.

Although the stages do not necessitate linearity, each stage met is considered a progression of

organizational and information technology maturity, as the stages increase in complexity, cost,

and technological demands (Rao, Metts, and Monge 2003 ; United Nations 2008 ).

In this study, we analyzed a nonprofit stage model by comparing it to a consumer-based,

third-party automated service. In particular, the study applies both evaluation instruments to