Crowdfunding has emerged as a market-based solution to give frontline complex public service employees the opportunity to acquire resources by advertising project proposals for donor patrons on crowdfunding platforms. However, whether crowdfunded resources can improve offline service outcomes, and if so, how and when, remains murky. Focusing on the context of public education crowdfunding and applying theories from crowdfunding and services marketing literature, the authors conceptualize that the combination of two factors—namely, teachers’ request for resources meant to satisfy unmet heterogeneous (i.e., diverse and evolving) intellectual needs of students and donors’ screening and approval (i.e., crowd screening) of promising projects—helps improve student academic achievement. Collating novel panel data from DonorsChoose and California Department of Education, the authors show that (1) crowdfunded resources positively affect student academic achievement, (2) student academic achievement improves with the increase in the heterogeneity of intellectual needs that crowdfunded resources likely satisfy, (3) crowd screening of project proposals plays a critical role in the offline effectiveness of crowdfunded resources, and (4) crowd screening effectiveness depends on the type of project.
AlthoffTimLeskovecJure (2015), “Donor Retention in Online Crowdfunding Communities: A Case Study of Donorschoose.org,” in Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on World Wide Web. Geneva: International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee, 34–44.
BagheriAfsanehChitsazanHastiEbrahimiAshkan (2019), “Crowdfunding Motivations: A Focus on Donors’ Perspectives,” Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 146, 218–32.
4.
BassBrittany (2019), “The Effect of Technology Investment on Student Achievement,” working paper, Department of Economics, University of California-Irvine.
5.
BealesHowardMazisMichael B.SalopSteven C.StaelinRichard (1981), “Consumer Search and Public Policy,” Journal of Consumer Research, 8 (1), 11–22.
6.
BleiDavid M.NgAndrew Y.JordanMichael I. (2003), “Latent Dirichlet Allocation,” Journal of Machine Learning Research, 3 (January), 993–1022.
7.
BurtchGordonGhoseAnindyaWattalSunil (2013), “An Empirical Examination of the Antecedents and Consequences of Contribution Patterns in Crowd-Funded Markets,” Information Systems Research, 24 (3), 499–519.
CadwalladerSusanJarvisCheryl BurkeBitnerMary JoOstromAmy L. (2010), “Frontline Employee Motivation to Participate in Service Innovation Implementation,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 38 (2), 219–39.
ChiuMing AnandaKhooLawrence (2005), “Effects of Resources, Inequality, and Privilege Bias on Achievement: Country, School, and Student Level Analyses,” American Educational Research Journal, 42 (4), 575–603.
13.
CongerJay A.KanungoRabindra N. (1988), “The Empowerment Process: Integrating Theory and Practice,” Academy of Management Review, 13 (3), 471–82.
FaberJanke M.LuytenHansVisscherAdrie J. (2017), “The Effects of a Digital Formative Assessment Tool on Mathematics Achievement and Student Motivation: Results of a Randomized Experiment,” Computers & Education, 106, 83–96.
21.
FantuzzoJohnTigheErinChildsStephanie (2000), “Family Involvement Questionnaire: A Multivariate Assessment of Family Participation in Early Childhood Education,” Journal of Educational Psychology, 92 (2), 367–76.
22.
FulkersonWilliam O.BanilowerEric R. (2014), “Monitoring Progress: How the 2012 National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education Can Inform a National K-12 STEM Education Indicator System,” report, Education Resources Strategy.
23.
GaoQiangLinMingfengWuD.J. (2021), “Educational Crowdfunding and Student Performance: An Empirical Study,” Information Systems Research, 32 (1), 53–71.
GreenwaldRobHedgesLarry V.LaineRichard D. (1996), “The Effect of School Resources on Student Achievement,” Review of Educational Research, 66 (3), 361–96.
26.
GüntherFritzDudschigCarolinKaupBarbara (2015), “LSAfun: An R Package for Computations Based on Latent Semantic Analysis,” Behavior Research Methods, 47 (4), 930–44.
HanushekEric A. (2003), “The Failure of Input-Based Schooling Policies,” The Economic Journal, 113 (485), F64–98.
29.
HanushekEric A.KainJohn F.MarkmanJacob M.RivkinSteven G. (2003), “Does Peer Ability Affect Student Achievement?” Journal of Applied Econometrics, 18 (5), 527–44.
30.
HartlineMichael D.FerrellOrville C. (1996), “The Management of Customer-Contact Service Employees: An Empirical Investigation,” Journal of Marketing, 60 (4), 52–70.
31.
HartlineMichael D.MaxhamJames G.IIIMcKeeDaryl O. (2000), “Corridors of Influence in the Dissemination of Customer-Oriented Strategy to Customer Contact Service Employees,” Journal of Marketing, 64 (2), 35–50.
HoffmanK. DouglasIngramThomas N. (1992), “Service Provider Job Satisfaction and Customer,” Journal of Services Marketing, 6 (2), 68–78.
34.
HoxbyCaroline M. (1998), “How Much Does School Spending Depend on Family Income? The Historical Origins of the Current School Finance Dilemma,” American Economic Review, 88 (2), 309–14.
35.
HoxbyCaroline M. (2000), “The Effects of Class Size on Student Achievement: New Evidence from Population Variation,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115 (4), 1239–85.
36.
HuangPengLurieNicholas H.MitraSabyasachi (2009), “Searching for Experience on the Web: An Empirical Examination of Consumer Behavior for Search and Experience Goods,” Journal of Marketing, 73 (2), 55–69.
KellyMarisa (1994), “Theories of Justice and Street-Level Discretion,” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 4 (2), 119–40.
39.
KepplerSamanthaLiJunWuDi Andrew (2020), “Crowdfunding the Front Lines: An Empirical Study of Teacher-Driven School Improvement,” working paper, Stephen M. Ross School of Business, University of Michigan.
KwortnikRobert J.Jr.Michael LynnW.RossWilliam T.Jr. (2009), “Buyer Monitoring: A Means to Insure Personalized Service,” Journal of Marketing Research, 46 (5), 573–83.
42.
LarrickRichard P.SollJack B. (2006), “Intuitions About Combining Opinions: Misappreciation of the Averaging Principle,” Management Science, 52 (1), 111–27.
43.
LashleyConrad (1999), “Employee Empowerment in Services: A Framework for Analysis,” Personnel Review, 28 (3), 169–91.
LeeBrett (2018), “Financing Public Education via Crowdfunding: K-12 Teachers as Social Entrepreneurs,” dissertation, Texas State University.
46.
LipskyMichael (2010), Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Service. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
47.
MasonKevinJensenThomasBurtonScotRoachDave (2001), “The Accuracy of Brand and Attribute Judgments: The Role of Information Relevancy, Product Experience, and Attribute-Relationship Schemata,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 29 (3), 308–18.
48.
MatsunagaYoshihoYamauchiNaoto (2004), “Is the Government Failure Theory Still Relevant? A Panel Analysis Using US State Level Data,” Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 75 (2), 227–63.
MollickEthan (2014), “The Dynamics of Crowdfunding: An Exploratory Study,” Journal of Business Venturing, 29 (1), 1–16.
51.
MollickEthanNandaRamana (2016), “Wisdom or Madness? Comparing Crowds with Expert Evaluation in Funding the Arts,” Management Science, 62 (6), 1533–53.
52.
NelsonAshlyn AikoGazleyBeth (2014), “The Rise of School-Supporting Nonprofits,” Education Finance and Policy, 9 (4), 541–66.
53.
NelsonPhillip (1970), “Information and Consumer Behavior,” Journal of Political Economy, 78 (2), 311–29.
54.
PaarlbergLaurie E.GenSheldon (2009), “Exploring the Determinants of Nonprofit Coproduction of Public Service Delivery: The Case of K-12 Public Education,” The American Review of Public Administration, 39 (4), 391–408.
55.
Peters-BurtonErin E.HouseAnnPetersVanessaRemoldJulie (2019), “Understanding STEM-Focused Elementary Schools: Case Study of Walter Bracken STEAM Academy,” School Science and Mathematics, 119 (8), 446–56.
56.
PiantaRobert C.HamreBridget KAllenJoseph P. (2012), “Teacher-Student Relationships and Engagement: Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Improving the Capacity of Classroom Interactions,” in Handbook of Research on Student Engagement, ChristensonS.ReschlyA.WylieC., eds. Boston: Springer, 365–86.
57.
PugachMarleen C. (2009), Because Teaching Matters: An Introduction to the Profession. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
58.
ReeseJessicaMillerKurtz (2017), “Crowdfunding for Elementary Science Educators,” Science and Children, 54 (6), 55–59.
SurowieckiJames (2005), The Wisdom of Crowds. New York: Anchor Books.
66.
TirunillaiSeshadriTellisGerard J. (2014), “Mining Marketing Meaning from Online Chatter: Strategic Brand Analysis of Big Data Using Latent Dirichlet Allocation,” Journal of Marketing Research, 51 (4), 463–79.
67.
ToddPetra E.WolpinKenneth I. (2003), “On the Specification and Estimation of the Production Function for Cognitive Achievement,” The Economic Journal, 113 (485), F3–F33.
68.
VandenbergheVincent (1999), “Combining Market and Bureaucratic Control in Education: An Answer to Market and Bureaucratic Failure?” Comparative Education, 35 (3), 271–82.
69.
WeisbrodBurton Allen (1988), The Nonprofit Economy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
70.
WilderKelly M.CollierJoel E.BarnesDonald C. (2014), “Tailoring to Customers’ Needs: Understanding How to Promote an Adaptive Service Experience with Frontline Employees,” Journal of Service Research, 17 (4), 446–59.
71.
ZyungJ. DanielMittalVikasKekreSunderHegdeGajanan G.ShangJenniferMarcusBrian S.VenkatArvind (2020), “Service Providers’ Decision to Use Ethics Committees and Consultation in Complex Services,” Journal of Marketing Research, 57 (2), 278–97.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
