Doing good is good for research

I overuse certain phrases. Anyone who works with me knows I’m a fan of telling readers “why it matters.” But my favorite new catchphrase is “doing good is good for research.”

That’s due to the newly released Audit Committee Practices Report (ACPR), a joint effort between 德勤 's Center for Board Effectiveness and the Center for Audit Quality . For the 3rd edition, we wanted to be intentional about using improved research methods to increase the overall response count.

No one wants to answer your survey

Responses to surveys of every type have declined for some time. There are a multitude of explanations for that, though I'm partial to the survey fatigue theory. Certain populations can also have characteristics that further suppress likelihood of answering, including: (1) having a white collar job, (2) working in a profession that requires prioritized multi-tasking (ironically), and/or (3) being risk averse.

Board members, c-suite executives, and policymakers are all examples of groups with a preponderance of these characteristics. Even if you use a multi-faceted approach to get survey responses, there are no guarantees when dealing with these populations. But there are some options:

1. Personalized invitations: Getting people to click the survey link can be a choke point. Sometimes making the invitations personalized and come from someone the respondents are familiar with can help.
2. Use of incentives: Giving potential respondents a direct cash-like incentives (e.g., gift cards) is always popular. But even assuming you have a budget, some groups have professional norms (or regulations) which prohibit them from accepting incentives as "gifts."
3. Reducing abandonment: Asking fewer questions, less wordy questions, and cutting open-ended questions all improve the chances of someone completing a survey.

Take a survey, help a good cause

This year's ACPR deployed all the above strategies on invitations and reducing abandonment. But we also offered something different: charitable contributions. This engages potential respondents by offering to make a donation to a third-party cause after survey completion. When this aligns with the survey taker’s altruistic motivations, it increases their willingness to participate. This won't work for every use case, but a growing body of evidence supports it. A study published last month even shows offering charitable contributions boosts response rates (82.3%) more than a direct incentive (74.5%).

The 3rd edition of the ACPR survey informed respondents a $100 donation would be made for each of the first 200 qualifying respondents. Respondents could pick Braven , New Profit , or could choose to divide the $100 evenly. The result? A notable increase in engagement, from 165 in the previous edition to 266 this time – a 60% increase. ?

And to be sure, there is no way to know how much of that 60% increase can be ascribed solely to the use of charitable contributions. All we know is that the number of responses surged 60% after deploying several design changes. But even combined, nothing in the methods literature around survey questionnaire and/or invitation design techniques suggests they can add up to a 60% increase.

This isn’t a “look at how good we are” thing

Trying this kind of strategy requires leadership which is willing to innovate. And thankfully, Krista Parsons and Vanessa Teitelbaum wanted to think outside the box. They were also intentional about ensuring the report noted our charitable contribution design, but not in a way that would draw disproportionate attention (see the bottom of page 37).

Because the goal is not to highlight the ACPR as some type of exemplar paragon of altruism. And that may read as ironic, given this post. But this is truly about an effective research design that could work for many hard-to-reach survey groups. It does have limitations. After all, charitable contributions require a research budget (that can be rare - or nonexistent, especially for my nonprofit colleagues).

This is a “why it matters” thing

This was research done in a manner congruent with the values of 德勤 and the Center for Audit Quality . Deloitte has publicly declared its purpose as making an impact that matters. And yes, it can be hard to believe any institution of size is genuine with such claims. Bold claims should always be questioned. I would offer this report as an answer (but not the only answer) to that kind of legitimate skepticism.

There were innumerable ways we could have tried to get more responses for this project. The decision was to make an impact that matters – for the many audit committees that use this report and for two non-profits that are addressing vital community needs. Its another way that we can move the needle, be it ever so slightly, in the right direction.