In this study, we investigate the role of third-party ratings (star ratings) given by watchdog organizations and empirically examines whether the zero- to three star ratings provided by GuideStar KOREA have additional information content for donors using the Regression Discontinuity Design (RDD) approach. To test the relationship between charity ratings and donations, we examine 315 non-profits rated by GuideStar in Korea for the period 2015-2018. The results are as follows: First, the overall ratings have a statistically significant effect on the he amount of contributions receives. Both star ratings and rating score(overall ratings) have a significant positive impact on the contributions, especially star ratings have shown a strong correlation with donations rather than rating score. That's because stars are relatively easy to interpret than overall ratings. Second, before doing RDD analysis, we also verified that assumptions for applying RDD are properly established in our model. The results show that there is no evidence of a significant change in control variables at the threshold values of the overall ratings, the forcing variable (a function of overall rating) is not manipulated, and McCrary’s density test yields a nonrandom sorting of charities across cutoff ratings. This finding implies that the assumption of applying RDD is found to be satisfied. Third, for NPOs that are rated as 3 stars, a one point increase in overall ratings is associated with a 1.4 times increase in charitable contributions received, while for NPOs that are rated as 2 and 3 stars, the estimation results show that an increase in overall ratings does not have a significant impact on charitable contributions received. Fourth, this study shows that for large NPOs that are slightly below the 3 star threshold rating, a one star increase has a significant impact on the amount of contributions that the NPO would receive. However, large NPOs that are slightly below the 2 star threshold rating and small NPOs that are below 2, 3 star threshold rating, a one star increase has no significant impact on the amount of contributions an organization receives. Fifth, we find that the responses to the ratings of individual donors and corporate donors are all significant positive, but contrary to expectations, the treatment effect of the ratings at 90 cut-points is more than twice as strong as that of corporate donations. Lastly, the study indicate that third-party rating information and Web site disclosure information on NPOs are relatively relevant to the contributions received compared to media coverage. It also show that NPOs received the first grade for the third consecutive year have higher contributions than those who do not. Overall, we find that a change in GuideStar ratings is associated with a directionally consistent change in donations. Above all, the study suggests that star rating informations at the cut-point (assignment point) of the actual rating, plays an important role in the decisionmaking for charity giving. However, the effect of these star ratings is limited to changes in the relatively high star ratings, from two star ratings to three. Therefore, in order to address complaints from NPOs that do not receive three star ratings due to the difference of actual marginal rating, various measures should be worked out to supplement star ratings system, just as the latest credit rating system shifts from star rating to scoring system. The results of this study will be useful information to improve the rating system and activation of donations by NPO CEOs and the government.