ARTICLE
ABSTRACT
The aim of this paper is to assess efficiency of verification policies used in charity organizations. Verification policy can be introduced to ensure that aid is granted only to people who are eligible for it. However, it bears costs for the program’s organizers. The paper provides a theoretical model assessing economic efficiency of ver ification policy using optimization and simulation methods. Depending on characteristics of the program one of three decisions might be optimal: granting aid without verification, granting aid only to positively verified people or not granting aid at all. Therefore, in order to make a decision about introducing verification policy charity organization should analyze parameters of the program such as: average amount of aid, average cost of verification and percentage of people eligible to obtain help in the program.
KEYWORDS
charity aid, optimization, linear programming
REFERENCES
Ariely D., Bracha A., Meier S., (2009), Doing Good or Doing Well? Image Motivation and Monetary Incentives in Behaving Prosocially, The American Economic Review, 99 (1), 544–555.
Berger J. O., (1985), Statistical Decision Theory and Bayesian Analysis, Springer Science & Business Media.
Bougheas S., Dasgupta I., Morrissey O., (2007), Tough Love or Unconditional Charity?, Oxford Economic Papers, 59 (4), 561–582.
Clotfelter C. T., (1980), Tax Incentives and Charitable Giving: Evidence From a Panel of Taxpayers, Journal of Public Economics, 13 (3), 319–340.
Cornia G. A., Stewart F., (1993), Two Errors of Targeting, Journal of International Development, 5 (5), 459–496.
Das J., Do Q. T., Özler B., (2005), Reassessing Conditional Cash Transfer Programs, The World Bank Research Observer, 20 (1), 57–80.
Dasgupta I., Kanbur R., (2005), Community and Anti-Poverty Targeting, The Journal of Economic Inequality, 3 (3), 281–302.
Dynarski S. M., Scott-Clayton J. E., (2006), The Cost of Complexity in Federal Student Aid: Lessons from Optimal Tax Theory and Behavioral Economics, National Bureau of Economic Research, 59, 319–356.
GUS (2016), Zatrudnienie i wynagrodzenia w gospodarce narodowej w 2015 roku, http://stat.gov.pl/obszary-tematyczne/rynek-pracy/pracujacy-zatrudnieni-wynagrodzenia-koszty-pracy/zatrudnienie-i-wynagrodzenia-w-gospodarce-narodowej-w-2015-roku,1,21.html,data dostępu: 14/11/2016.
Haveman R. H., Bershadker A., (1998), The “Inability to Be Self-Reliant” as an Indicator of Poverty: Trends in the United States, 1975-1995, University of Wisconsin--Madison, Institute for Research on Poverty, 47, 335–60.
Kahneman D., Tversky A., (1979), Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk, Econometrica, Journal of the Econometric Society, 47, 263–291.
Morrissey O., (2006), Fungibility, Prior Actions, and Eligibility for Budget Support, Budget Support as More Effective Aid, 333–350.
Perry B., (2002), The Mismatch Between Income Measures and Direct Outcome Measures of Poverty, Social Policy Journal of New Zealand, 19, 101–127.
Stowarzyszenie WIOSNA (2015), Raport o polskiej biedzie, http://www.szlachetnapaczka.pl/upload/rob2015/raport_o_biedzie.pdf, data dostępu: 14/11/2016.
van Iwaarden J., van der Wiele T., Williams R., & Moxham C., (2009), Charities: How Important is Performance to Donors?, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 26 (1), 5–22.
Wright K., (2001), Generosity vs. Altruism: Philanthropy and Charity in the United States and United Kingdom, Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 12 (4), 399–416.
