resource-a marketing research study-final draft
Post on 12-Apr-2017
89 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Page | 1
A Marketing Research Study Spring 2015
Jordan Ganz
Grayson Levino Hudson Corbett
Taylor Kammerer Christian Bingham
Page | 2
1.0 Executive Summary 1.1 Purpose Five University of Vermont business students partnered with ReSOURCE through our
Marketing Practicum course to conduct a market research study. The purpose of the study was to
provide useful feedback and insights to ReSOURCE’s current fundraising strategies in order to set a
benchmark for an annual customer survey. The research was done through an email listserv of 404
past donors provided by ReSOURCE. We were able to collect data from 71 donors, giving us a
response rate of 17.6%. This information will help ReSOURCE evaluate where they stand in
comparison to other non-‐profits and identify potential opportunities for improvement for an
annual customer survey.
1.2 Project Overview • The objective of the research was to determine:
o Satisfaction with various facets of ReSOURCE’s fundraising efforts
o Donation patterns compared with other non-‐profits
o What compels them to donate
• ReSOURCE’s intended use of the results:
o To gather insights from donors about their current fundraising efforts
o Find ways to improve the success of their solicitations
o To set a benchmark for an annual customer survey
• The data were collected through an email survey which was developed and
administered by the research team
• The research team consisted of five UVM business students: Christian Bingham,
Hudson Corbett, Jordan Ganz, Taylor Kammerer and Grayson Levino.
1.3 Significant Findings • Only half of all respondents earn over $100,000/year after tax.
• Most people are aware of ReSOURCE’s community outreach programs through e-‐
newsletters, word of mouth, postal mail sent to their home/business and contact
with a company representative.
• 90% of donors feel as though they are being solicited an appropriate amount.
Page | 3
• 41% of those surveyed have donated to other non-‐profits in the past 2 to 2.5
months, only 2.8% have donated to ReSOURCE in that time.
• 7% of donors contribute to ReSOURCE more than once/year, compared to 35.1% for
other non-‐profits.
• 9.8% of donors contribute $1,000+ to ReSOURCE compared to 31% for other non-‐
profits.
• 28.8% of survey participants feel ‘neutral’ about how ReSOURCE informs them on
how their donations will be used.
• 75% of donors are married.
• 93.7% of donors have earned some college degree.
• 95.8% of participants are aware of ReSOURCE’s community outreach programs.
• 87.3% of donors have been solicited at least once by ReSOURCE.
Page | 4
Table of Contents 1.0 Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ 2
1.1 Purpose .............................................................................................................................................. 2
1.2 Project Overview ................................................................................................................................ 2
1.3 Significant Findings ............................................................................................................................ 2
2.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 9
3.0 Timeline of Events ................................................................................................................................ 10
4.0 Literature Review ................................................................................................................................. 11
4.1 The Nonprofit Sector in the United States ....................................................................................... 11
4.2 An Introduction into ReSOURCE ...................................................................................................... 12
4.2.1 Apprentice-‐Style Training Programs ......................................................................................... 13
4.2.2 Work Experience Training ......................................................................................................... 13
4.2.3 YouthBuild ................................................................................................................................. 13
4.3 Charitable Behavior ......................................................................................................................... 14
4.4 Indicators of Monetary Donation Behavior ..................................................................................... 15
4.5 Nonprofits & Social Media ............................................................................................................... 17
4.6 Future Outlook ................................................................................................................................. 19
5.0 Research Design and Objectives .......................................................................................................... 20
5.1 Objectives: ....................................................................................................................................... 20
5.2 Relationships of Interest: ................................................................................................................. 20
5.3 Information Needs: .......................................................................................................................... 20
5.4 Data Collection Mode: ..................................................................................................................... 21
5.5 Sample Size and Protocol: ................................................................................................................ 22
5.6 Qualitative Research: ....................................................................................................................... 22
5.7 Question Types and Scales: .............................................................................................................. 22
6.0 Question types ..................................................................................................................................... 23
7.0 Descriptive Statistics ............................................................................................................................ 25
7.1 Demographics .................................................................................................................................. 25
7.1.1 Table 1.1 ..................................................................................................................................... 25
Page | 5
7.2 Awareness ........................................................................................................................................ 26
7.2.1 Table 2.1 ..................................................................................................................................... 26
7.2.2 Table 2.2 ..................................................................................................................................... 27
7.2.3 Table 2.3 ..................................................................................................................................... 28
7.2.4 Table 2.4 ..................................................................................................................................... 28
7.3 Solicitation ....................................................................................................................................... 29
7.3.1 Table 3.1 ...................................................................................................................................... 29
7.3.2 Table 3.2 ..................................................................................................................................... 30
7.4 Donation Behavior ........................................................................................................................... 31
7.4.1 Graph 3.1 .................................................................................................................................... 31
7.5 Comparing Donation Patterns and Behaviors .................................................................................. 32
7.5.1 Table 4.1 ..................................................................................................................................... 32
7.5.2 Table 4.2 ..................................................................................................................................... 32
7.5.3 Table 4.3 ..................................................................................................................................... 33
7.5.4 Table 4.4 ...................................................................................................................................... 33
7.5.5 Table 4.5 ..................................................................................................................................... 34
7.5.6 Table 4.6 ...................................................................................................................................... 34
7.5.7 Table 4.7 ..................................................................................................................................... 35
7.5.8 Table 4.8 ...................................................................................................................................... 36
7.5.9 Table 4.9 ...................................................................................................................................... 37
7.5.10 Table 4.10 .................................................................................................................................. 38
7.5.11 Table 4.11 .................................................................................................................................. 39
8.0 Testing Hypotheses Related to ReSOURCE, Other Non-‐Profits, and Fund Raising .............................. 40
8.1 Hypothesis: ...................................................................................................................................... 40
8.2 Hypothesis: ...................................................................................................................................... 41
8.3 Hypothesis: ...................................................................................................................................... 42
8.4 Hypothesis: ...................................................................................................................................... 43
8.5 Hypothesis: ...................................................................................................................................... 44
8.6 Hypothesis: ...................................................................................................................................... 45
9.0 Conclusions .......................................................................................................................................... 46
Page | 6
10.0 Limitations ......................................................................................................................................... 47
11.0 Appendix ............................................................................................................................................ 48
11.1 Survey ............................................................................................................................................ 48
11.1.1 Donations Patterns to ReSOURCE ........................................................................................... 49
11.1.2 Donation Patterns Regarding Non-‐Profits Other Than ReSOURCE ......................................... 52
11.1.3 Demographics ......................................................................................................................... 55
11.2 Frequency Report .......................................................................................................................... 56
11.2.1 How did you find out about ReSOURCE? (Please check all that apply) .................................. 56
11.2.2 Are you aware of ReSOURCE’s Poverty Relief & Job Skills training programs (Youthbuild, Apprentice-‐style, and Work Experience programs)? ......................................................................... 60
11.2.3 How did you find out about ReSOURCE community outreach programs? ............................. 60
11.2.4 Have you ever been solicited for donations by ReSOURCE? (Regardless of whether or not you made a donation) ............................................................................................................................... 63
11.2.5 Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statement: “ReSOURCE solicits me for monetary donations…” .......................................................................................................... 63
11.2.6 Are there any changes you would recommend to ReSOURCE in regards to solicitation for monetary donations? (Ex: less often, e-‐mail instead of direct mail, offer incentives, etc.) ............... 64
11.2.7 Have you supported ReSOURCE’s fundraising efforts through monetary donations? ........... 65
11.2.8 When was the last monetary contribution you made to ReSOURCE? .................................... 65
11.2.9 On average, how often do you donate to ReSOURCE? ........................................................... 65
11.2.10 On average, per year, how much do you contribute to ReSOURCE’s fundraising efforts? ... 66
11.2.11 What has compelled you to support ReSOURCE with monetary donations? ....................... 66
11.2.12 If you would like to elaborate on your previous answer, please use the box below. ........... 68
11.2.13 Please indicate your agreement with the following statements regarding donating to ReSOURCE .......................................................................................................................................... 69
11.2.14 Have you provided ReSOURCE with in-‐kind (goods or services) donations? ........................ 70
11.2.15 Over the past 5 years, how many times have you supported ReSOURCE with in-‐kind donations? ......................................................................................................................................... 71
11.2.16 What has compelled you to support ReSOURCE with in kind donations? ............................ 71
11.2.17 If you would like to elaborate on your previous answer, please use the box below. ........... 73
Page | 7
11.2.18 Have you supported another non-‐profit’s fundraising efforts through monetary donations? ........................................................................................................................................................... 73
11.2.19 What non-‐profit organizations other than ReSOURCE have you donated to? ..................... 73
11.2.20 When was the last monetary donation you made to a non-‐profit other than ReSOURCE? . 75
11.2.21 On average, how often do you donate monetarily to other non-‐profits? ............................ 76
11.2.22 On average, per year, how much do you contribute to those other non-‐profits? ............... 76
11.2.23 Have you provided other non-‐profits with in-‐kind donations? ............................................ 77
11.2.24 What compelled you to donate to other non-‐profits? ......................................................... 77
11.2.25 Over the past 5 years, how many times have you supported another non-‐profit with in-‐kind donations? ......................................................................................................................................... 79
11.2.26 Can you see the effects of your donations to other non-‐profits? ......................................... 80
11.2.27 If you would like to elaborate on your answers above, please use the box below. ............. 80
11.2.28 Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements regarding non-‐profit organizations other than ReSOURCE: ................................................................................................ 80
11.2.29 How did you find out about non-‐profits other than ReSOURCE to which you donate? ....... 83
11.2.30 Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements regarding non-‐profit organizations other than ReSOURCE: ................................................................................................ 86
11.2.31 Are you solicited by non-‐profits other than ReSOURCE? If yes, approximately how often (per organization)? ............................................................................................................................ 88
11.2.32 Which do you think is the most useful type of donation? .................................................... 89
11.2.33 What other organizations solicit you? What do they do right and wrong in their solicitation process? ............................................................................................................................................. 89
11.2.34 On average, how often do you make purchases at ReSOURCE's household goods store? .. 91
11.2.35 Marital/Relationship Status .................................................................................................. 91
11.2.36 Does your spouse/partner currently hold a job .................................................................... 92
11.2.37 Do you have any children or are acting as caretaker for any child? ..................................... 92
11.2.38 How many children do you have or are currently acting as caretaker for? .......................... 92
11.2.39 Do any of these children currently classify as dependents? ................................................. 93
11.2.40 Are you currently employed or self-‐employed? ................................................................... 93
11.2.41 Are you retired? .................................................................................................................... 93
11.2.42 Who is your current employer? ............................................................................................ 94
Page | 8
11.2.43 What is your job position? .................................................................................................... 94
11.2.44 What is your current combined annual household income before taxes? ........................... 95
11.2.45 What is the highest level of education you completed? ...................................................... 95
11.2.46 What is your age in years? .................................................................................................... 96
11.2.47 What is your gender? ............................................................................................................ 97
11.2.48 What is your 5 digit zip code? ............................................................................................... 97
11.3 Bibliography ................................................................................................................................... 99
Page | 9
2.0 Introduction Five students in the University of Vermont business marketing research practicum course
conducted this report with guidance from Dr. James Sinkula. The course is offered to provide a
hands-‐on marketing research experience for students in the form of creating, conducting, analyzing,
and presenting marketing research. The research team consisted of Christian Bingham, Hudson
Corbett, Jordan Ganz, Taylor Kammerer, and Grayson Levino.
The team worked with ReSOURCE, a local non-‐profit community enterprise that’s mission
is, “to meet community and individual needs through (1) education and job skills training, (2)
environmental stewardship, and (3) economic opportunities. We first met with Curtis Ostler on
January 16th to clarify the objectives of our research. From there we created research objectives
and research design report. After adjusting the report to meet Ostler’s and ReSOURCE’s needs we
began a preliminary questionnaire in mid-‐February. After compiling and analyzing the survey
results we presented our findings to Ostler in the beginning of May.
In this report, the reader will find a brief history of ReSOURCE, an explanation of the
research methods, an analysis of the data, our key findings, and conclusions.
The proceeding page includes a list of events that the research team followed to complete
the project.
Page | 10
3.0 Timeline of Events
January 16th, 2015 Initial client meeting with Mr. Curtis Ostler
All members & ReSOURCE
representative present January 20th, 2015 DUE-‐ Client meeting
report All members present
January 27th, 2015 DUE-‐ Research objectives and research
design
All members present
February 3rd, 2015 DUE-‐ Abstract of literature
All members present
February 10th, 2015 DUE-‐ Preliminary Questionnaire
All members present
February 17th, 2015 DUE-‐ Final Questionnaire with client approval
All members present
March 10th, 2015 DUE-‐ Data collection report
All members present
March 12th, 2015 DUE-‐ Data collection conformation from client & literature
review
Did not meet
March 24th, 2015 DUE-‐ Completed electronic data file
All members present
March 31st, 2015 Write and enter SPSS programs
All members present
April 7th, 2015 DUE-‐ Frequencies program output
All members present
April 14th, 2015 DUE-‐ Analysis tables & write up
All members present
April 21st, 2015 DUE-‐ First draft of final report
All members present
April 28th, 2015 DUE-‐ Final report & client presentation date
and place
TBD
Page | 11
4.0 Literature Review
4.1 The Nonprofit Sector in the United States The origins of philanthropy and volunteer services can be traced back to the colonial
era of US history. During the colonial period, there was no distinction between public or private
business entities, as all corporations were considered public agencies (Hall, n.d.). These
agencies included institutions such as townships, churches, and colleges; all of which were all
supported by taxes and government grants. While these public agencies differed from modern
“private” aspects of nonprofits, they held similar characteristics in that they were self-‐
governing, had no stockholders, were exempt from taxation, and could accept donations for
charitable purposes.
It wasn’t until the 1900’s that the concept of private nonprofit organizations formed a
coherent sector in the United States (Hall, n.d.). During and after WWII, the US government
implemented heavy income tax rates that created two results that allowed the nonprofit sector
to form. First, it gave the government more revenue to spend on whatever it pleased (allowing
more money for grants to nonprofits and social programs, building them internally). Second,
the government encouraged charitable giving to private institutions that were already tax
exempt by offering personal exemptions or deductions from the income tax to individuals who
donated to those institutions (offering incentives for individuals to donate). These policies
caused rapid expansion of the sector as seen by the increase of charitable tax-‐exempt
organizations from 12,500 in 1940 to 320,000 in 1980 (Hall, n.d.).
Today there are over 1,440,000 million nonprofits registered with the Internal Revenue
Service (IRS) (McKeever & Pettijohn, 2014). The IRS identifies nonprofit organizations by
coding them as 501(c) corporations, and even has 27 different classifications (Fritz, n.d.). The
most common classification is 501(c)(3), which applies to charitable organizations. In order for
the organization to be deemed charitable, it must serve to benefit the broad public interest, not
just the interests of its members. Overall, this classification includes religious, educational,
charitable, and literary groups; groups that test for public safety, that foster national amateur
sports competitions, and prevent cruelty to children and animals.
Page | 12
Although the nonprofit sector has had a dramatic growth since the 1980’s and early
2000’s, it is important to note that the rate of growth for both the number of organizations and
total revenue of the nonprofit sector has slowed since the recession. Between the years 2002
and 2007 there was a 33.5% increase of revenues for all public charities, compared to only a
6.6% increase from 2007 to 2012 (McKeever & Pettijohn, 2014). This decline in growth during
and after the 2008 recession can be attributed to people’s lack of confidence to donate money
and the government imposing stricter spending budgets that limit the amount of money they
can give to nonprofits (Edwards, Quincy, & Lu, 2012). In order to compensate from the lack of
funds from the government, nonprofit organizations must find ways to solicit more donations
from prospective donors in order to survive.
4.2 An Introduction into ReSOURCE In 1991, ReSOURCE opened its doors to the public under their original name ReCycle
North. Located in Burlington, Vermont, their goal was to serve community and individual needs
by offering quality goods at affordable prices. In order to do this, the nonprofit organization
began collecting and repairing household items, that otherwise would have gone to waste.
Originally, the organization offered programs to benefit homeless trainees in the form of
appliance repair and electronics repair. Yet, their reach over the community would not stop
there. A Burlington Free Press article from January 1991 quotes founder Ron Krupp as saying,
“I wanted to combine a business with helping people.” Krupp felt that “It wasn’t enough to give
people food and clothes... they need to break out of their cycle … if they are in a training
situation where they are doing something they believe in then maybe they can make a change
(Decher, 1991).”
The year 1995 marked ReSOURCE’s move to their current location at 266 Pine Street in
Burlington, Vermont. Over the next four years ReSOURCE would prove to show not only an
expansion in their organization but also in the benefits they offered the community. In their
new workspace, the staff had grown to eight employees and the company’s mission and values
were refined.
At this point in time, donors began to realize the value of ReSOURCE’s existence in their
community. To handle a large influx of goods offered to the organization, ReSOURCE opened a
Page | 13
building material center across the street. ReSOURCE would later go on to expand its reach in
Vermont to the towns of Williston, Barre, and Morrisville. According to their website, “more
than 750 people have received job training and skills essential to gain employment, 10,000
low-‐income people have received needed household goods and building materials, more than
10,000 tons of materials have been kept from the landfill, and 50 people now have secure
employment through income earned largely from this social enterprise.”
Some of ReSOURCE’s community outreach programs are listed below:
4.2.1 Apprentice-‐Style Training Programs One way ReSOURCE serves its community is through its Apprentice-‐Style Training
Programs. These programs give individuals job skills to restructure their life. Many who are
accepted into the program are either: unemployed or underemployed, unsatisfied in their
current occupation; yet, retain the job due to economic stress, or need retraining because of an
occupational injury. The programs offered are: Office Administration, Major Appliance Repair,
Computer Systems Technology, Assistive Technology and Durable Medical Equipment, and a
Woodshop Entrepreneurial Program.
4.2.2 Work Experience Training This program focuses on giving individuals experience with: computerized cash register
and money management, customer service and phone skills, attendance and punctuality, and
time/task management. Adult and youth participants, alike, also gain skills with basic math
exercises and upon completion gain a valuable introduction to worksite expectations.
4.2.3 YouthBuild ReSOURCE introduced their YouthBuild program in 2004 to serve the younger
community who have dropped out of high school, ages 16 to 24. These children often need
greater comprehensive development and job training opportunity. The program trains
participants, through a 10-‐month program, in construction skills while serving others by
building affordable and energy efficient housing.
In order to fund and support these programs ReSOURCE relies on various federal grants
to cover costs. Curtis Ostler, Development Director at ReSOURCE noted, “In 2007, government
funding, both state and federal, accounted for about 20% of ReSOURCE’s income. Last year
Page | 14
[2014] that fell below 7%, while salaries and expenses continue to rise.” ReSOURCE’s
YouthBuild program alone has historically relied on an annual federal grant of over $500,000.
Yet, due to budget cuts at both state and federal level, the organization no longer receives as
much. Other Workforce Development Grants, at both levels, have also diminished (C. Ostler,
personal communications, 2015).
While funding for their programs was decreasing, their overall expenses continued to
rise. As a result ReSOURCE was forced to downsize. This came in the form of various “budget
cuts across the board”, Curtis said. “This includes reduced operating materials, greater reliance
on donated goods to run our offices, such as paper and cleaning supplies, suspending the
company contributions to employee retirement accounts, and even cutting some of positions to
reduce departmental salaries (C. Ostler, personal communications, 2015).” In order for
ReSOURCE to continually support the region with its community outreach and job training
programs, they must perpetually generate an ample source of fundraising income. ReSOURCE
has a strong donor base, however business is an ongoing challenge and it is important to
explore the reasons why people donate in order to further expand their pool of donors.
4.3 Charitable Behavior Before we get into the details of who is donating, let’s first begin to talk about general
trends in charitable behavior. To start, we can look at the world as a whole. Twenty eight
percent of the world’s population donates money and 18% volunteer their time. Just to see how
levels of charitable behavior differ, compared to 18% of the world, 40% of Canada, US, and
Liberia volunteer, which are some of the highest rates of any countries. One way to understand
why it is that some countries are more charitable than others is to look at it through cultural
power distance (PD). PD can be defined as the extent to which a society expects and accepts
inequality in power and/or wealth. According to a Charities Aid Foundation study conducted in
2012, lower PD correlated to higher donation rates. The five most generous countries have PD
scores of 40 or lower and the five least generous countries have scores of 70 or higher (Wang &
Ashcraft, 2014).
If we wanted to focus on only the United States’ charitable behavior, we can see that
over 70% of monetary donations (accumulating to $227 billion) in the US in 2012 came from
individual donors. Also, in terms of volunteering by individuals, 15.2 billion labor hours were
Page | 15
conducted which were estimated to be worth $300 billion (Wang & Ashcraft, 2014). Looking at
the monetary donations, we have found that most donations are made once per year. One of the
difficulties nonprofits face is that they usually have insufficient data unlike a for-‐profit
company, which would have databases on consumer’s behavior from repeat purchases (Lee &
Chang, 2007).
Some interesting relationships we have found are that: first, people tend to give more
monetarily if they have some kind of organizational commitment or involvement with the
nonprofit (Wang & Ashcraft, 2014); secondly, there is a trend where some people will be
motivated to donate when learning that a large corporation they have affiliation or
commitment with has also donated to the nonprofit (Thornton, 2006). The last sort of trend
that we have found is that more and more nonprofits are starting to run some form of revenue
streaming business (i.e. ReSOURCE’s household goods store and Goodwill’s retail stores).
Besides having a more steady income, this is a great way for charitable nonprofits to gather
customer data to understand donor behavior and reach out to prospective donors.
4.4 Indicators of Monetary Donation Behavior In the massive body of research done on charitable giving, many different theories have
been posited as to why people donate. Although these theories have been relatively ineffective
in pinning one specific reason why people donate, there have been successful strides towards
what type of people donate, and how much, based on demographic, psychographic, and
socioeconomic indicators.
First, in several of the sources reviewed that analyzed donation patterns across
demographics, researchers were able to find a few demographic indicators that seemed to
affect donation patterns universally. Starting with simple demographics:
• research shows that the elderly are more likely to donate than their younger
counterparts;
• conservative states tend to take part in charitable giving more than liberal states;
• caucasians generally donate more than minorities;
• although homeownership and marital status do not inherently increase or decrease the
probability of donation, the man in the relationship will generally donate more than his
wife.
Page | 16
One recurring finding in the research is that religious affiliation had a moderately
positive correlation to donation behavior. The more involved a donor was with their religion,
the more they tended to give, and with more frequency. While general religious affiliation did
have a positive correlation to donation amount and frequency, no relationship was found
between different types of religion (e.g., Judaism, Catholicism, Hinduism, etc.) and donation
behavior. However, as religion has become less and less a staple in modern households,
researchers have found that this correlation is stronger in older demographics, and not as
strong in younger donors.
According to these sources, the strongest indicator was the level of education of the
donors. As the level of education of the donor increased, so too did the frequency and amount
the donor would theoretically give. A study published by Frank Adloff (2008) found that “40%
of those with a high school degree [donate], whereas 60-‐70% with a college degree do so
(Adloff, 2008).” A possible reason behind this is the theory of accumulated social capital. While
people attend college, they gain what is known as social capital, or a large network of people
who trade information and resources.
Social capital is also one of the strongest socioeconomic indicators of why and how
much people give. As the article "Acts of Benevolence: A Limited-‐Resource Account of
Compliance with Charitable Requests” (2009) points out, the generation of social capital
through informal social networking increases the level of volunteering simply because it
increases the possibility of, and exposure to opportunities to donate (Fennis, Janssen, & Vohs,
2009). To quote Adloff (2008), “The willingness to donate rests on involvement in networks of
face-‐to-‐face relationships, which enable identification with the interest, needs, and suffering of
others (Adloff, 2008).” It makes sense that a donor who has more exposure to affected peoples
would be more likely to donate some disposable income to a certain need with which they have
come “face-‐to-‐face”.
While it is true that a person with high levels of social capital are more likely to donate
because of a sense of camaraderie, it is also true that higher levels of social capital drive higher
levels of donation as a source of social stratification. Frank Adloff (2008) found that, “Giving
not only reinforces the social bond and therefore horizontal solidarity; it also has the potential
to create hierarchical relations by demonstrating one’s own rank (Adloff, 2008).” Through
Page | 17
charitable donations, some donors are able to achieve what is informally known as “donor’s
high” and are able to showcase their own levels of wellbeing through charitable donations. So,
it seems that an individual with high levels of social capital donate for one of two reasons.
Consequently, further research into individuals’ identities was necessary to discover which of
these two theories about social capital would be most prevalent in donors.
Research done by Jennifer L. Aaker and Satoshi Akutsu (2009) found that the identities
of donors are very malleable based on what they call action-‐readiness and procedural-‐
readiness (Aaker & Akutsu, 2009). Basically, they found that when donors were asked to give
their time (action-‐readiness), they would, on average, donate more money than initially asked
in lieu of donating their time. They believe, “The mechanism fueling this effect appears to be a
more emotional mindset evoked when time was asked, and a more utilitarian mindset evoked
when money was asked first (Aaker & Akutsu, 2009).” So, it seems at first that people who
donate are more concerned about the target of the charity than the social recognition of
donating.
Additionally, they found that a change in the procedure of solicitation has a large effect
in the amount donated. Their research found that “...while a procedural shift might make
participants focus more on relationship, they may be more ready to donate (than volunteer)
because it is easier to imagine being among a group of donors than among a group of
volunteers (Aaker & Akutsu, 2009).” In summation, it seems that they have found that no
matter the level of involvement (i.e., volunteering or donating), donors have a higher level of
association with the beneficiaries of the charity, and not so much the level of recognition they
receive for actually donating to charity. Regardless, social capital theory weighs heavily on
donation patterns across the world.
4.5 Nonprofits & Social Media Over the past several years, charities and other nonprofit organizations have been able
to maximize their reach to potential donors through the means of a relatively new, up and
coming medium; social media. Social media have flourished on the Internet, especially through
popular platforms including Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. Unlike any other online
platform, social media allow users to “share” content with everyone in their social media
Page | 18
network, and lets businesses & organizations communicate to their followers for extremely low
costs.
According to Saxton & Wang (2014), nearly half a billion people access their Facebook
accounts daily (Saxton & Wang, 2014). With this massive online network already created, it is
up to the charitable organizations to take advantage and properly market themselves towards
the millions of Facebook users in order to create awareness for their cause or solicit social
media users for donations (Saxton & Wang, 2014). The study revealed that there is actually a
negative relationship between the size of the nonprofits that were active on social media and
the amount of donations received. In this study, size of the nonprofit was defined by the age of
the organization and the amount of users that have “liked” their Facebook page. It was
concluded from the study that Facebook users donate more often to smaller, lesser-‐known
organizations (Saxton & Wang, 2014).
The average Facebook donation in this study was $3, with no donation exceeding $50
(Saxton & Wang, 2014). Moreover, out of the 318,000 total fans of each nonprofit organization
combined, only 464 of those fans contributed monetary donations (Saxton & Wang, 2014).
From this information, it was concluded that Facebook serves as nothing more than a small
donor platform. This is the main reason why bigger, more known charitable organizations are
not found soliciting donations on social media (Saxton & Wang, 2014). One can argue that the
larger nonprofit organizations are not evident on Facebook because they have the financial
means for launching larger scale fundraising campaigns. However, the biggest contribution
made by Facebook users was the awareness they spread about the message and goals of the
nonprofits.
One potential reason to why these nonprofit organizations are not accumulating much
money via donations through Facebook is because nonprofits do not fully understand how to
use the website to its greatest potential. An experiment conducted by Waters et al. (2009)
examined 275 nonprofit organizations and monitored their fundraising efforts through
Facebook. The study showed that many nonprofits using the social media site were not fully
utilizing all the applications it offered. Nonprofits did a good job of stating their cause and
efforts, but they did a poor job of communicating and establishing relationships with the
Facebook users, which is something a lot of popular brands do successfully through social
Page | 19
networking (Waters, Burnett, Lamm, & Lucas, 2009). However, a study conducted by Curtis et
al. (2010) found that nonprofits with public relations practitioners were more successful in
establishing a ground of communication with their Facebook followers than those without.
The common theme across these studies is that nonprofit organizations, especially
small ones, are still trying to understand the best way to solicit donations and generate
awareness through social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. Many of
these studies had suggestions for future research. This does not come as a surprise because
social media is still in the process of reaching its full potential as a media platform, and for
users it has been easier than ever to always stay connected since the spike in smartphone and
wireless smart device usage.
4.6 Future Outlook As the US government continues to decrease their discretionary spending, nonprofit
organizations like ReSOURCE are being pushed to rely on solicitations for donations to make up
for the loss of revenue from government grants. In order to maximize returns from their
donors, ReSOURCE can focus on the relationship between likely donation amount and the
psychographic, demographic, or behavioral characteristics of the donor. To summarize the
main findings of these aforementioned relationships: first, individuals who are more involved
with their community are more likely to donate. Second, individuals who know other people
who donate or know the beneficiaries are more likely to donate. Third, Caucasians are more
likely to donate than minorities. Lastly, Facebook can be used as a tool to spread mass
awareness, and its users are more likely to donate to smaller organizations as opposed to
larger international programs. The task of understanding donor behavior is quite challenging
due to the lack of consistent purchase information, therefore it is essential for organizations
like ReSOURCE to find alternative methods to understanding their customers’ and donors’
behavior in order to successfully solicit donations.
Page | 20
5.0 Research Design and Objectives
5.1 Objectives: Due to declines in federal funding ReSOURCE is looking to develop social enterprise and
greater levels of private funding in order to sustain existing community based programs. The
objective of this research is to inform future marketing and development/fundraising strategies.
This will better ReSOURCE’s ability to solicit and collect funds from existing and prospective
donors. Better understanding of the public’s views of ReSOURCE can also be used to turn more
people into donors and give insight into the public’s general knowledge of the community based
non-‐profit programs ReSOURCE has established. The information collected will set various
benchmarks for an annual customer survey. Successful collection and use of the information will
allow ReSOURCE to find new ways of raising funds, promoting programs, and ensuring the
continuation of existing programs that serve the community.
5.2 Relationships of Interest: • Awareness of ReSOURCE’s non-‐profit programs as related to the amount donated
• How much money they have donated to other organizations compared to their
donations to ReSOURCE and why.
• How much they have donated monetarily compared to their in-‐kind donations
• Discrepancies between successful appeal attempts of prospective donors and those who
have donated in the past.
• The demographics of donors as related to their donation level
5.3 Information Needs: After meeting with the sponsor we have determined the various types of quantitative
information they desire. Broadly we are interested in donors’ demographics such as: age, sex,
education level, general income level, and their living location. We are also interested in how they
found out about ReSOURCE and more specifically we will be gathering data regarding:
• “Cash” Donations
o How long they have been a donor for
o What made them a donor in the first place
o How much they have cumulatively donated
o Why they felt compelled to make a donation
Page | 21
• “In-‐Kind” Donors
o What compelled them to make an “in-‐kind” donation to ReSOURCE
• Solicitation
o Our sponsor has specified a desire to get a better understanding of “to what
extent do people mind being solicited for donations.” This will give them a base
of how often to send out appeals without risking driving away donors due to
bothersome communication.
• Knowledge of ReSOURCE’s non-‐profit programs
o Our survey will collect information regarding the extent to which people know
about the various programs ReSOURCE administers and whether or not they
understand the full extent of what they do.
• Response (Success) Rate Gap
o From previous information collected, our sponsor has discovered a large
discrepancy between the response rates from appeals sent to previous donors
and prospective donors. They have relayed a desire to uncover details that could
be used to turn more people into donors.
• Attitudes towards ReSOURCE
o Why people are drawn to ReSOURCE?
o What are the differences between attitudes towards ReSOURCE and other non-‐
profits?
5.4 Data Collection Mode: The survey will be conducted via emails to our sample frame.
o Email allows for cheap, efficient, and fast delivery of messages regarding our
desire for information. The email will contain a link referring the sample to our
online survey.
The use of email surveys means that respondents will be given exactly the same
survey and instructions. This eliminated the possibility of interviewer bias that is possible
with the face-‐to-‐face interviewing method of surveying. Surveys were sent out on March 1st
and data was collected over a three-‐week period thereafter.
Page | 22
5.5 Sample Size and Protocol: • Sample Frame
o For this research we are using a list provided by ReSOURCE of everyone who
has made donations to the organization. In total, ReSOURCE provided us with a
list of 404 past donors.
• Sample Procedure
o With only 404 possible respondents, the email surveys were sent to all members
of the list in order to receive the largest attainable sample.
• Email Protocol
o A maximum of three emails with a survey link attached were sent out to our
sample. Those who responded were not solicited further.
• Sample Size
o 404 previous donors
• Response Rate: 18%
o 71 total respondents
5.6 Qualitative Research: Prior to developing the questionnaire we analyzed scholarly, peer-‐reviewed articles
relating to the donation behavior of various parts of the community. The purpose of this
preliminary work is to gather data to form a better base for our survey questions.
5.7 Question Types and Scales: For this survey we will mostly be measuring donors’ attitudes, behaviors, and
demographics. To accomplish this we will use a survey consisting of:
• Dichotomous yes/no questions
• Likert scale based questions measured on an interval level
• Multiple choice questions-‐ both single response and multiple response-‐ measured on a
nominal level
• Open ended questions
Page | 23
6.0 Question types In order to fully engage the participants within the ReSOURCE donor survey, the research
team utilized four question types. These question types included dichotomous yes/no questions,
Likert scale based questions on an interval level, multiple choice questions on a nominal level, and
open ended questions.
Most of the dichotomous yes/no questions had question logics that were used to direct
participants to parts of the survey that they were qualified to answer. For example, the second
question of the survey asked participants if they were aware of ReSOURCE’s community outreach
programs. If they said ‘yes’, they were directed to a question further regarding the awareness of
those programs. If they said ‘no’, they were directed to the next dichotomous question with a nested
question logic. The rest of these yes/no questions asked participants if they made monetary or in-‐
kind donations to either ReSOURCE or other non-‐profits.
The main way we measured the participants’ attitudes towards ReSOURCE was through
interval level Likert scales. We used these scales to measure the level of agreement on
predetermined statements concerning monetary donations to ReSOURCE. We also applied them to
gauge the level of importance of factors that compel people to donate to other non-‐profits. In
addition, Likert scales were used to assess the level of agreement on additional predetermined
statements regarding other non-‐profits, such as familiarity with the leaders of other organizations
and awareness of other non-‐profits community outreach programs. These ranged from 5-‐point to
7-‐point scales.
The majority of the questions in this survey were multiple choice questions measured on a
nominal level. Some of the questions allowed one response, while others allowed multiple
responses. Most single response questions were used to measure the donation behaviors of the
participants of both ReSOURCE and other non-‐profits. Some of these questions asked the
participants the most frequent donation they made, the average amount of times they donate (per
year), and the average amount of money they donate (per year) to both ReSOURCE and other non-‐
profits. The other single response multiple choice questions were demographic based questions.
Multiple response multiple choice questions were used to test how the donors found out about
ReSOURCE, how they found out about ReSOURCE’s community outreach programs, and the reasons
why the participants support both ReSOURCE and other non-‐profits with donations. Numerous
answer choices were applicable to one respondent, hence the multiple response question design.
Page | 24
Two types of open-‐ended questions were put into this survey. One type was a direct
question for the respondent to answer. These questions consisted of participants’
recommendations of ReSOURCE’s solicitation practices, the names of other non-‐profits that the
participants donated to, and the solicitation processes of those other non-‐profits. The other type of
open-‐ended questions encouraged participants to elaborate on their previous answers. However,
these were only for certain questions, such as the multiple response multiple choice questions
measuring donation behaviors.
Page | 25
7.0 Descriptive Statistics 7.1 Demographics 7.1.1 Table 1.1
Gender Percent Male 35.4% Female 64.6%
Relationship Status Percent Single 7.4% Widowed 2.9% Married 75.0% Divorced 14.7%
Employment / Children Percent Are you employed or self-‐employed? 61.2% Are you retired? (of the 26 that responded no to "Are you employed") 88.5% Is your spouse employed? 62.8% Do you have children/ are you a caretaker? 56.7% Are your children classified as dependents? 43.2% How many children do you have (or for which you are a legal guardian)?
(Of respondents who are caretakers) Percent
1 27.8% 2 41.7% 3 22.2% 4 5.6% 5 2.8% 6+ 0.0%
Income Range Percent Under $35k 8.3% $36k-‐$49k 10.4% $50k-‐$74k 8.3% $75k-‐$99k 5.6% $100k-‐174k 27.1% $175k+ 27.1%
What is your highest level of education completed? Percent High school 1.6% Some college 4.7%
College graduate 23.4% Some graduate school 12.5%
Graduate degree 57.8%
Page | 26
Summary Demographics from the respondents provide ReSOURCE with an idea of who is donating to them and who has answered the proceeding questions. As shown in table 1.1, a vast majority of donors are married (75%) and have earned a college degree (93.7%). Roughly half of the respondents earn $100,000/year after tax and the other half earn anywhere from under $35,000/year to $99,999/year. Again only about half of the respondents have children or are primary caretakers of children, 43% of whom are caretakers of dependents.
7.2 Awareness 7.2.1 Table 2.1 Q.1) How did you f ind out about ReSOURCE? (Please check al l that apply)
Answer Options Response Percent Response Count
Other (Appendix 1.1) 57.70% 41
Recommendation from friends/relatives 26.80% 19
Letters & brochures sent to your home or business
14.10% 10
ReSOURCE e-newsletter 8.50% 6
Meeting with a company representative 7.00% 5
Newspaper advertisement 5.60% 4
Information seek 4.20% 3
Company website 2.80% 2
External event (company sponsored or other
2.80% 2
Information provided at your office 1.40% 1
TV advertisement 1.40% 1
Internet banner advertisement 0.00% 0
Magazine advertisement 0.00% 0
Through a state agency 0.00% 0
answered question 71
skipped question 0
Page | 27
7.2.2 Table 2.2
Summary In questions 1 and 29, which are presented in tables 2.1 and 2.2, we asked respondents to indicate how they became aware of ReSOURCE and other non-‐profit organizations to which they donate. In both cases, “Letters and brochures sent to your home or business” were both highly effective in reaching and educating respondents about different organizations (14.1% of ReSOURCE donors, and 55.6% for those who donate to other non-‐profits in addition to ReSOURCE). Second, we found that the power of networks, in this case, “recommendations from friends or relatives” have profound effect on how people find out about different organizations with 26.8% of respondents indicating that is how the found out about ReSOURCE, and 42.2% of respondents indicating that is how they found out about other non-‐profits.
Q.29) How did you f ind out about non-profi ts other than ReSOURCE to which you donate? (Please select al l that apply)
Answer Options Response Percent
Response Count
Letters & brochures sent to your home or business 55.60% 25
Other (Appendix 1.2) 46.70% 21
Recommendation from friends/relatives 42.20% 19
Meeting with an organization representative 24.40% 11
Looked up organizations on the internet, print, or other media 17.80% 8
Newspaper advertisement 8.90% 4
Company website 6.70% 3
Through a state agency 4.40% 2
TV advertisement 2.20% 1
Information provided at your office 0.00% 0
Internet banner advertisement 0.00% 0
Magazine advertisement 0.00% 0
answered question 45
skipped question 26
Page | 28
7.2.3 Table 2.3
7.2.4 Table 2.4 Q.3) How did you f ind out about ReSOURCE's community outreach programs? (Please check al l that apply)
Answer Options Response Percent
Response Count
ReSOURCE e-newsletter 36.90% 24
Word of Mouth (friends, family, or within community) 36.90% 24
Letters & Brochures sent to your home or business 30.80% 20
Contact with a company representative 21.50% 14
Other (Appendix 1.3) 13.80% 14
ReSOURCE's website 13.80% 9
External event (company sponsored or other) 7.70% 5
Know someone in/affected by programs 4.60% 3
Print advertisement 4.60% 3
TV advertisement 3.10% 2
Information provided at your office 1.50% 1
Information seek 0.00% 0
Online advertisement 0.00% 0
Social Media 0.00% 0
answered question 65
skipped question 6
Summary In question 3, we asked respondents to indicate how they found out about the community outreach programs. We found that the ReSOURCE newsletter is very effective in donor education accounting for
Are you aware of ReSOURCE's Poverty Relief & Job Skil ls training programs (Youthbuild, Apprentice-style, and Work Experience programs)? (Hereinafter referred to as community outreach programs)
Answer Options Response Percent
Response Count
Yes 95.8% 68
No 4.2% 3
answered question 71
skipped question 0
Page | 29
36.9% of respondents. Just as effective as the newsletter is the power of word of mouth marketing, followed by other letters and brochures sent to the home or office.
7.3 Solicitation 7.3.1 Table 3.1 Q.4) Have you ever been solicited for donations by ReSOURCE? (Regardless of whether or not you made a donation)
Answer Options Response Percent
Response Count
Yes 87.3% 62 No 12.7% 9
answered question 71 skipped question 0
Q.5) Please indicate your level of agreement with the fol lowing statement: "ReSOURCE solicits me for monetary donations..." Answer Options Response
Percent Response
Count Very rarely 4.9% 3 Not frequently enough 3.3% 2 Appropriately 90.2% 55 Frequently 1.6% 1 Too frequently 0.0% 0
answered question 61 skipped question 10
Summary Table 3.1 analyzes responses from both questions 4 and 5 in order to gain insight into potential donors’ attitudes towards the amount of solicitation that they receive from ReSOURCE. We observe that 87.3% of the sample of ReSOURCE’s donor list has been solicited for donations at least once. Furthermore, we discerned that 90.2% of respondents felt that ReSOURCE’s amount of solicitation is appropriate. For more information on donors’ attitudes towards ReSOURCE’s solicitation techniques, see open-‐ended responses in Appendix (Q.6).
Page | 30
7.3.2 Table 3.2 Q.31) Are you solicited by non-profi ts other than ReSOURCE? If yes, approximately how often (per organization)?
Answer Options Response Percent
Response Count
I am not solicited 4.3% 3 1-2 times/year 26.1% 18 3-4 times/year 27.5% 19 5-6 times/year 14.5% 10 7-8 times/year 2.9% 2 9+ times a year 24.6% 17
answered question 69 skipped question 2
Summary Tables 3.1 and 3.2 represent responses regarding solicitation from ReSOURCE and other non-‐profits. These tables are not easily comparable since table 3.1 measures attitudes and table 3.2 measures the numeric amount of solicitation per year. However, they present important information regarding how ReSOURCE’s donor list feels about the amount of solicitation they receive from ReSOURCE, and how often other non-‐profits solicit members of ReSOURCE’s donor list.
Table 3.2 represents respondents’ estimation of the amount of solicitation they receive from other non-‐profit companies other than ReSOURCE. Only 4.3% of respondents stated that they were not solicited by other non-‐profits, while the majority of respondents stated they were solicited 1-‐2, 3-‐4, or more than 9 times per year, per organization. From these results, we observe that there is a wide range between the amounts of solicitation various potential donors estimate that they receive. Possible reasons for this include, but are not limited to: differences in solicitation tactics between different non-‐profits, exaggeration from respondents, or misunderstanding of the definition of a solicitation.
Page | 31
7.4 Donation Behavior Q. 33) What other organizations solicit you? What do they do right and wrong in their solicitation process? (See Appendix 1.4)
7.4.1 Graph 3.1
Summary In question 33 (see ‘Frequency Report’, appendix). We asked respondents to indicate their attitudes about how non-‐profits other than ReSOURCE in an unstructured, open-‐ended forum. Included in the data are the raw text responses, as well as the frequency of common words used in the text responses, which is depicted in Graph 3.1. We found that among respondents, Red Cross, Salvation Army, Committee on Temporary Housing (COTS), and Vermont Public Television (VPT) were mentioned more than once in how they were successful to solicit funds. Also of interest was that “Telling their stories” was a phrase that was mentioned twice, indicating that respondents are interested in hearing the “stories” from the organizations and what they are doing with the money.
Page | 32
7.5 Comparing Donation Patterns and Behaviors Below are data tables of both ReSOURCE and other non-‐profits regarding donation patterns. These data tables side by side facilitate easy comparison for the donation behaviors of our survey participants.
7.5.1 Table 4.1 Q.8) When was the last monetary contr ibution you made to ReSOURCE?
Answer Options Response Percent
Response Count
2015 3.0% 2 2014 80.3% 53 2013 12.1% 8 2012 1.5% 1 Prior to 2012 3.0% 2
answered question 66 skipped question 5
7.5.2 Table 4.2 Q.20) When was the last monetary donation you made to a non-profi t other than ReSOURCE?
Answer Options Response Percent
Response Count
2015 43.9% 29 2014 53.0% 35 2013 1.5% 1 2012 0.0% 0 Prior to 2012 1.5% 1
answered question 66 skipped question 5
Summary Table 4.1 and 4.2 show the last monetary contribution our respondents made to both ReSOURCE and other non-‐profits. From this table, we see that 77.4% of the respondents to this question made donations to ReSOURCE in the past year and a half. We also see that 89.8% of the respondents to this question made donations to other non-‐profits in the past year and a half. In addition, 15.5% of the respondents to this question haven’t donated to ReSOURCE prior to 2013, where as only 2.8% of the respondents to this question haven’t donated to other non-‐profits since 2013.
Page | 33
7.5.3 Table 4.3 Q.9) On average, how often do you donate to ReSOURCE?
Answer Options Response Percent
Response Count
Once a year 82.1% 55 Less than once a year 10.4% 7 Twice a year 7.5% 5 Three times a year 0.0% 0 Every month 0.0% 0 Every week 0.0% 0
answered question 67 skipped question 4
7.5.4 Table 4.4 Q.21) On average, how often do you donate monetari ly to other non-profi ts?
Answer Options Response Percent
Response Count
Once a year 60.3% 41 Every month 19.1% 13 Twice a year 7.4% 5 Every week 7.4% 5 Less than once a year 2.9% 2 Three times a year 2.9% 2
answered question 68 skipped question 3
Summary Table 4.3 and 4.4 show the average number of donations the respondents make to both ReSOURCE and other non-‐profits. We observe from this table that the majority of the respondents (77.5%) to this question make monetary donations to ReSOURCE once a year, and only 7.0% of the respondents donate to ReSOURCE more than once a year. On the other hand, the respondents to this question donate to other non-‐profits on a more frequent basis. 57.7% make donations once a year, but 35.1% make donations at least twice a year, with 18.3% of the respondents donating monthly and 7.0% donating weekly.
Page | 34
7.5.5 Table 4.5 Q.10) On average, per year, how much do you contr ibute to ReSOURCE’s fundraising efforts? Answer Options Response
Percent Response
Count
Under $99 50.0% 32 $100-$499 39.1% 25 $1,000-$1,999 6.3% 4 $5,000 or more 4.7% 3 $500-$999 0.0% 0 $2,000-$4,999 0.0% 0
answered question 64 skipped question 7
7.5.6 Table 4.6
Table 4.5 and 4.6 show the yearly average monetary donation amount given by the respondents in this question. Almost half of ReSOURCE’s donors (45.1%) donate less than $99 a year to ReSOURCE, where only 19.7% of the respondents donate less than $99 a year to other non-‐profits. Both ReSOURCE and other non-‐profits get a similar amount of donors who make a yearly donation in the $100-‐$499 range, with percentages of 35.2% and 33.8%. Beyond that, only 9.8% of ReSOURCE’s donors make an average yearly donation of $1,000+, with 4.2% of those average yearly donations coming in at $5,000 or more. Respondents to this question make larger average yearly donations to other non-‐profits. 31% of other non-‐profit donors make average yearly donations that exceed $1,000, with a whopping 14.1% of those donors making an average yearly donation of at least $5,000.
Q.22) On average, per year, how much do you contr ibute to those other non-profi ts?
Answer Options Response Percent
Response Count
$100-$499 37.5% 24 Under $99 21.9% 14 $5,000 or more 15.6% 10 $2,000-$4,999 10.9% 7 $500-$999 7.8% 5 $1,000-$1,999 6.3% 4
answered question 64 skipped question 7
Page | 35
Summary When we look at these tables as a whole, it is clear that the respondents to this survey make larger donation amounts more frequently to other non-‐profits compared to ReSOURCE, even though (on average) 7.3% of respondents skipped each question.
7.5.7 Table 4.7 Q.11) What has compelled you to support ReSOURCE with monetary donations? (Please check al l that apply)
Answer Options Response Percent
Response Count
To support Youthbuild job skills training programs 68.7% 46 To help community members in need 68.7% 46 Environmental programs 49.3% 33 Poverty Relief programs 47.8% 32 Appeals send from ReSOURCE 20.9% 14 Other (Appendix 1.5) 19.4% 13 To receive a tax break 13.4% 9 Self fulfillment 7.5% 5 Personal recognition 3.0% 2 Spiritual or religious reasons 1.5% 1
answered question 67 skipped question 4
Table 4.7 shows the reasons why the respondents to this survey feel compelled to donate monetarily to ReSOURCE. In this question, respondents were allowed to choose multiple answers to why they feel compelled to donate. The majority of the respondents donate to ReSOURCE to support the organization’s community outreach programs such as Youthbuild, job skills training programs, Poverty Relief, and Environmental programs. Donors also feel compelled to contribute monetarily to help fellow community members in need. 13.43% of respondents donate to receive a tax break, while an intriguing 20.90% of donors contribute monetarily to ReSOURCE because of solicitations sent by the non-‐profit. To view the responses of the respondents who selected “Other”, please see responses in Appendix (Q.11).
Page | 36
7.5.8 Table 4.8 Q.24) What compelled you to donate to the other non-profi ts? (Check al l that apply)
Answer Options Response Percent
Response Count
To help community members in need 84.8% 39 To support community outreach programs 58.7% 27 To save material from landfills 47.8% 22 Inner satisfaction 45.7% 21 Appeals sent from the non-profit 32.6% 15 To receive a tax break 32.6% 15 To get rid of 'junk' 26.1% 12 Spiritual or religious reasons 19.6% 9 Other (Appendix 1.6) 17.4% 8 Personal recognition 4.3% 2
answered question 46 skipped question 25
Table 4.8 shows the reasons why the respondents to this survey feel compelled to donate monetarily to other non-‐profits. In this question, respondents were allowed to choose multiple answers to why they feel compelled to donate. This question serves as a larger scope to why the respondents donate to non-‐profits in a general sense because the reasons why people would donate to non-‐profits would be exponential and could be overwhelming to the respondents. The main reason why the respondents donate to other non-‐profits is because they want to help community members in need (84.78%). To support community outreach programs was another strong response with 58.70% of respondents checking that answer, while 45.65% of the respondents donate for inner satisfaction and 32.61% donate because of solicitations sent by the non-‐profit. To view the responses of the respondents who selected “Other”, please see responses in Appendix (Q.24).
Summary The main reasons why respondents donate to ReSOURCE and other non-‐profits are because they like to support the outreach programs that are ran by these organizations as well as community members in need. Appeals gauged a decent response for ReSOURCE (20.90%) and other non-‐profits (32.61%), and are something’s ReSOURCE could further explore in order to fully utilize that type of outreach.
Page | 37
7.5.9 Table 4.9 Q.13) Please indicate your level of agreement with the fol lowing statements regarding monetary donations to ReSOURCE. (Select one category for each question) Answer Options
Strongly Disagree
(1)
Disagree (2)
Neutral (3)
Agree (4)
Strongly Agree
(5)
Rating Average
ReSOURCE makes it easy for me to donate 2 0 6 37 22 4.15
I feel that my donations to ReSOURCE have a significant impact on the community
2 0 10 38 16 4.00
ReSOURCE gives me the appropriate amount of recognition for my contributions to fundraising
1 1 12 35 14 3.95
ReSOURCE informs me on how my donations will be used 2 4 19 29 12 3.68
answered question 67 skipped question 4
Table 4.9 represents the responses from question 13, which asked respondents to rate their level of agreement to each statement regarding attitudes towards monetary donations to ReSOURCE on a Likert scale. The statements above reflect a positive attitude towards ease of donation, transparency on how donations will be used, perceived impact of donations, and amount of recognition received. The vast majority of the respondents stated that they agreed to the statements, which reflects positive attitudes towards important aspects of monetary donations. The lowest scoring statement was ReSOURCE’s transparency on how each individual’s donation will be used, with 37.8% of the respondents marking Neutral or lower. The next lowest statement was the amount of recognition donors received, with 22.2% marking Neutral or lower.
Page | 38
7.5.10 Table 4.10 Q.30) Please indicate your level of agreement with each of the fol lowing statements.
Answer Options Strongly Disagree
(1)
Disagree (2)
Neither Agree
nor Disagree
(3)
Agree (4)
Strongly Agree (5)
Rating Average
I am familiar with all programs offered by non-profits other than ReSOURCE to which I donate.
1 7 14 35 8 3.65
A small donation to other organizations will make a big impact.
0 4 29 25 5 3.49
I know exactly how my donations will be used in other organizations.
0 15 15 30 3 3.33
I am familiar with the leaders (e.g., CEO, Directors, etc.) of non-profits other than ReSOURCE.
7 8 21 17 13 3.32
If I donate to nation-wide organizations, I will see beneficiaries in my own community.
4 13 27 17 2 3.00
A nation-wide organization is more effective than a regional or local organization.
17 32 13 1 1 2.02
answered question 66 skipped question 5
Table 4.10 represents another attitudinal Likert scale, now asking respondents for their level of agreement to statements regarding other non-‐profits. The ratings are ranked from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). Overall, most of the average ratings were quite neutral falling closely to a rating of 3. Respondents indicated that their highest level of agreement was to the statement regarding their familiarity of all programs offered by other non-‐profits, with an average rating of 3.65. Furthermore, they also indicated that their lowest level of agreement was with the statement that a nation-‐wide organization is more effective than a local organization, with an average rating of 2.02
Page | 39
7.5.11 Table 4.11 Q.15 + Q.25) Over the past 5 years, how many t imes have you made In-kind donations to…
ReSOURCE Other Non-Profi ts
Answer Options Response Percent
Response Count
Response Percent
Response Count
1-2 times 16.7% 9 8.9% 4 3-5 times 37.0% 20 28.9% 13 6-10 times 18.5% 10 11.1% 5 10+ times 27.8% 15 51.1% 23
answered question 76.06% 54 63.38% 45 skipped question 23.94% 17 36.62% 26
Table 4.11 represents the differences of amount of In-‐Kind donations over the past 5 years to ReSOURCE compared to other non-‐profits. It was observed that the majority of respondents stated that they made donations 3-‐5 times a year or more than 10 times per year.
Page | 40
8.0 Testing Hypotheses Related to ReSOURCE, Other Non-‐Profits, and Fund Raising This section illustrates our cross-‐tabular data on the Chi-‐Square tests conducted. Each hypothesis we tested is listed in order and the corresponding outputs can be found under the hypotheses (Note: All tests were based on a strict confidence level of greater-‐than or equal-‐to 95%).
8.1 Hypothesis: The frequency a consumer purchases goods at ReSOURCE’s retail location affects the average amount they donate monetarily to ReSOURCE
Question 10 -‐ On average, per year, how much do you contribute to ReSOURCE's fundraising efforts?
(Collapsed)
Question 34 -‐ On average, how often
do you make purchases at ReSOURCE's
household goods store
≤ $99 > $99 Total
Never Count 6 15 21 Column Percent 28.6% 71.4% 100.0%
1 -‐ 2 Times per Year
Count 17 12 29 Column Percent 58.6% 41.4% 100.0%
3 or More Times per
Year
Count 8 4 12 Column Percent 66.7% 33.3% 100.0%
Total Count 31 31 62
Column Percent 50.0% 50.0% 100%
p < 0.05
Conclusion:
The Chi-‐square probability value = .048. Therefore, the frequency a consumer purchases goods at ReSOURCE’s retail location affects the average amount they donate monetarily to ReSOURCE.
Page | 41
8.2 Hypothesis: A donor’s familiarity with the leaders (e.g., CEO, Directors, etc.) of non-‐profits other than ReSOURCE, directly affects the amount donated monetarily to those non-‐profits.
Question 22 -‐ On average, per year, how much do you contribute to those other
non-‐profits? (Collapsed)
≤ $99 > $99 Total
Question 30 -‐ Familiarity with the leaders (e.g, CEO, Directors, etc) of non-‐profits
other than ReSOURCE
"Not Familiar"
Count 12 20 32 Column Percent 37.5% 62.5% 100.0%
"Familiar to Very
Familiar"
Count 1 29 30
Column Percent 3.3% 96.7% 100.0%
Total Count 13 49 62 Column Percent 21.0% 79.0% 100.0% p < 0.05 Conclusion:
The Chi-‐square probability value =.0011. Therefore, a donor’s level of familiarity with the leaders (e.g., CEO, Directors, etc.) of non-‐profits other than ReSOURCE affects their average, per year, monetary contribution to those non-‐profits.
1 Fisher’s Exact Test was used for the Chi-‐squared value, which is appropriate to use when any expected cell value in a two-‐by-‐two table is less than ten.
Page | 42
8.3 Hypothesis: A donor’s average, per year, contribution to non-‐profits other than ReSOURCE affects their average, per year, contribution to ReSOURCE’s fundraising efforts.
Question 10 -‐ On average, per year, how much do you contribute to ReSOURCE's
fundraising efforts? (Collapsed)
≤ $99 > $99 Total
Question 22 -‐ On average, per year, how much do you contribute to those
other non-‐profits? (Collapsed)
$99 or Less Count 12 2 14
Column Percent 85.7% 14.3% 100.0%
$100 or More
Count 20 29 49
Column Percent 40.8% 59.2% 100.0%
Total Count 32 31 63 Column Percent 50.8% 49.2% 100% p < 0.05 Conclusion:
The Chi-‐square probability value = .0052. Therefore, a donor’s average, per year, contribution to other non-‐profits affects their average, per year, contribution to ReSOURCE’s fundraising efforts.
2 Fisher’s Exact Test was used for the Chi-‐squared value which is appropriate to use when any expected cell value in a two-‐by-‐two table is less than ten.
Page | 43
8.4 Hypothesis: An individual’s perception of the frequency they are solicited for donations by ReSOURCE affects their average donation frequency to ReSOURCE.
Question 9 -‐ On average, per year, how often do
you donate to ReSOURCE? (Collapsed)
Less than Once per Year
Once per Year
Two or More times per
Year Total
Question 5 -‐ Please indicate you level of
agreement with the following statement: "ReSOURCE solicits me for monetary
donations…"? (Collapsed)
ReSOURCE'S Solicitation Frequency is Appropriate
Count 6 43 6 55
Column Percent 10.9% 78.2% 10.9% 100.0%
ReSOURCE's Solicitation
Frequency is More or Less
Inappropriate
Count 1 12 3 16
Column Percent 6.3% 75.0% 18.8% 100.0%
Total Count 7 55 9 71 Column Percent 9.9% 77.5% 12.7% 100%
p > .05 Conclusion:
The Chi-‐square probability value = .6483. Therefore, an individual’s perception of ReSOURCE’s monetary donation solicitation frequency does not have an effect on their average donation frequency to ReSOURCE. This could be for various reasons including the fact that the sample used is biased towards believing that believing that ReSOURCE’s solicitation frequency is appropriate.
3 Likelihood Ratio was used for the Chi-‐squared value which is appropriate to use when any expected cell value, in a two-‐by-‐two table, is less than 5.
Page | 44
8.5 Hypothesis: The frequency of solicitation by non-‐profits other than ReSOURCE affects an individual’s average frequency of monetary donation to those non-‐profits.
Question 21 -‐ On average, how often do you donate monetarily to other non-‐profits?
(Collapsed)
Question 31 -‐ Approximately how often are you solicited by non-‐profits other than ReSOURCE? (Collapsed)
≤ $99 > $99 Total 1-‐2 Times per
Year Count 12 6 18
Column Percent 66.7% 33.3% 100.0% 3-‐4 Times per
Year Count 11 6 17
Column Percent 64.7% 35.3% 100.0% 5-‐8 Times per
Year Count 10 1 11
Column Percent 90.9% 9.1% 100.0%
9+ Times per Year Count 6 11 17 Column Percent 35.3% 64.7% 100.0%
Total Count 39 24 63
Column Percent 61.9% 38.1% 100.0%
p < .05
Conclusion:
The Chi-‐Square value = .026. Therefore, the frequency of solicitation by non-‐profits other than ReSOURCE affects an individual’s average frequency of monetary donation to those non-‐profits.
Page | 45
8.6 Hypothesis: The frequency of solicitation by non-‐profits other than ReSOURCE affects an individual’s average, per year, monetary donation to those non-‐profits.
Question 22 -‐ On average, per year, how much do you contribute to those other non-‐profits?
(Collapsed)
Question 31 -‐ Approximately how often are you solicited by non-‐profits other than ReSOURCE?
(Collapsed)
≤ $499 > $499 Total 1-‐2 Times per
Year Count 7 10 17
Column Percent 41.2% 58.8% 100.0% 3-‐4 Times per
Year Count 14 4 18
Column Percent 77.8% 22.2% 100.0% 5-‐8 Times per
Year Count 8 3 11
Column Percent 72.7% 27.3% 100.0% 9+ Times per
Year Count 7 9 16
Column Percent 43.8% 56.3% 100.0%
Total Count 36 26 62
Column Percent 58.1% 41.9% 100.0%
p > .05
Conclusion: Chi-‐Square asymptotic value = .066. Therefore, the frequency of solicitation by non-‐profits other than ReSOURCE does not have an effect on an individual’s average, per year, of monetary donation to those non-‐profits. Although, the value we drew from this test is very near significant therefore the relationship should still be considered. We believe that with a larger sample, the relationship would become significant.
Page | 46
9.0 Conclusions The market research we conducted produced useful results in determining the attitudes and
behaviors of ReSOURCE’s current donor base. The information that we derived can be used by
ReSOURCE to better comprehend why people donate, how much they donate, and how frequently they
donate. In addition, this information can be used towards the efforts in understanding what turns a
single time donor into a repeat donor. Lastly, these survey results give ReSOURCE great insight into why
other non-‐profits are so successful in their donation efforts.
Page | 47
10.0 Limitations Given our conclusions, there were a few limitations to our research. First, the size of our sample
could have been bigger. Nevertheless, we were able to achieve a high enough response rate that we
believe our sample to be representative of the population while also remaining statistically significant
(i.e., greater than thirty sampling units).
Second, we could have possibly achieved a higher response rate had we had the time and
resources to be able to send out a copy of the survey to potential respondents via postal mail. With the
online survey however, according to MailChimp, we were well above the industry average in terms of
opening rate (i.e., how many recipients of the email actually opened the email) and click rate (i.e., how
many recipients actually opened the survey link). This leads us to believe that the sample was still
statistically significant and both reliable and valid.
Third, it is possible that the time lag between when the respondents actually last interacted with
ReSOURCE (e.g., donated, shopped at the retail location, etc.) and when they took the survey could have
biased our data. However, from the data we found that most (80.3%) respondents last donated to
ReSOURCE in 2014, so this bias might not be so effectual.
Lastly, some of the questions on the survey itself could have been designed to be more
congruent. That is, when we measured donation behaviors of the respondents between ReSOURCE and
other non-‐profits to which they donate, we could have mirrored the questions so we could collect data
on both sets of behaviors. To be specific, we did not ask the respondents what compelled them to
donate monetarily to other non-‐profits in the same way we did for ReSOURCE.
In addition, the questions regarding their donation behavior to other non-‐profits could have
been geared around the non-‐profit the respondent donates to the most, rather than just general
donation habits. This would allow them to be more concise and thus have given us potentially stronger
and less biased data in this section. Also, the response rate for the open ended questions regarding
which organizations they donate to could have been higher, yielding us more usable data.
Page | 48
11.0 Appendix 11.1 Survey
Dear Participant,
You have been invited to participate in a survey regarding the non-‐profit organization, ReSOURCE, and donation habits of their current donors. This study is being conducted by Senior Business Administration Students at UVM studying market research and is required for the completion of our undergraduate degrees.
Your participation in this research is completely voluntary. You may choose to decline all together, or leave any questions unanswered that you are not comfortable with or do not fully understand. All information/involvement is kept completely confidential and anonymous.
This study serves a dual purpose:
1. To provide ReSOURCE with information and data about public awareness of their various community development programs and donation habits of their customers
2. To give us (as students) real world experience. If you choose to participate in this study we encourage you to supply information that is as accurate as possible. The higher the level of accuracy we can obtain with our data the more useful our findings will be when presented to ReSOURCE. The questionnaire has three different sections and should take approximately 20 minutes to complete.
Thank you for your time and assistance. Sincerely, The Students of UVM’s Business Administration Program
2015
Page | 49
11.1.1 Donations Patterns to ReSOURCE 1. How did you find out about ReSOURCE? (Please check all that apply)
[ ] 1 Internet banner advertisement [ ] 9 Recommendation from friends/relatives [ ] 2 Newspaper advertisement [ ] 10 Company website [ ] 3 Magazine advertisement [ ] 11 Meeting with a company representative [ ] 4 TV advertisement [ ] 12 External event (company sponsored or other) [ ] 5 Information provided at your office [ ] 13 Information seek [ ] 6 Through a state agency [ ] 14 Other (please specify below) [ ] 7 Letters & brochures sent to your home or ____________________________________ Business ____________________________________ [ ] 9 ReSOURCE e-newsletter
2. Are you aware of ReSOURCE’s Poverty Relief & job skills training programs (Youthbuild, Apprentice-style, and Work Experience programs)? (Hereinafter referred to as community outreach programs)
[ ] 1 Yes [ ] 2 No à Go to question 4
3. How did you find out about ReSOURCE’s community outreach programs? (Please check all that apply) [ ] 1 Online advertisement [ ] 9 Word of Mouth (friends, family, or within community) [ ] 2 Print advertisement [ ] 10 ReSOURCE’s website [ ] 3 TV advertisement [ ] 11 Contact with a company representative [ ] 4 Social Media [ ] 12 External event (company sponsored or other) [ ] 5 Information provided at your office [ ] 13 Information seek [ ] 6 Know someone in or affected by programs [ ] 14 Other (please specify below) [ ] 7 Letters & brochures sent to your home or ____________________________________ Business ___________________________________ [ ] 8 ReSOURCE e-newsletter
4. Have you ever been solicited for donations by ReSOURCE? (Regardless of whether or not you made a donation) [ ] 1 Yes [ ] 2 No à Go to question 7
5. Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statement:
ReSOURCE solicits me for monetary donations… [ ] 1 Very rarely [ ] 2 Not frequently enough [ ] 3 Appropriately [ ] 4 Frequently [ ] 5 Too frequently
6. Are there any changes you would recommend to ReSOURCE in regards to solicitation for monetary donations? (Ex: less often, e-mail instead of direct mail, offer incentives, etc.)
Instructions: For multiple choice questions place one ‘X’ in the spot provided. Questions allowing multiple answers will be specified. Some questions will allow for unstructured answers or provide space for elaboration; please use the designated space to record your response.
Preliminary Definitions: “Monetary donations” refers to any currency given (e.g. cash, checks, etc.) “In-‐Kind donations” refers to any physical object given to the organization (e.g. clothing, furniture, etc.) “Non-‐profits” refers to any charitable organization other than ReSOURCE
Page | 50
7. Have you supported ReSOURCE’s fundraising efforts through monetary donations? [ ] 1 Yes
[ ] 2 No à Go to question 17
8. When was the last monetary contribution you made to ReSOURCE? [ ] 1 2015 [ ] 3 2013 [ ] 5 Prior to 2012 [ ] 2 2014 [ ] 4 2012
9. On average, how often do you donate to ReSOURCE? [ ] 1 Less than once a year [ ] 3 Twice a year [ ] 5 Every month [ ] 2 Once a year [ ] 4 Three times a year [ ] 6 Every week
10. On average, per year, how much do you contribute to ReSOURCE’s fundraising efforts? [ ] 1 Under $99 [ ] 3 $500-$999 [ ] 5 $2,000-$4,999 [ ] 2 $100-$499 [ ] 4 $1,000 - $1,999 [ ] 6 $5,000 or more
11. What has compelled you to support ReSOURCE with monetary donations? (Please check all that apply)
[ ] 1 To support Youthbuild job skills training programs [ ] 6 To receive a tax break [ ] 2 Poverty Relief programs [ ] 7 Personal recognition [ ] 3 Environmental programs [ ] 8 Self fulfillment [ ] 4 To help community members in need [ ] 9 Appeals send from ReSOURCE [ ] 5 Spiritual or religious reasons [ ] 10 Other
12. If you would like to elaborate on your previous answer, please use the box below. (Optional)
17. Have you provided ReSOURCE with in-kind (goods or services) donations?
Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements regarding monetary donations to ReSOURCE. (Circle one category for each question)
Stro
ngly
D
isag
ree
Dis
agre
e
Neu
tral
Agr
ee
Stro
ngly
A
gree
13. ReSOURCE makes it easy for me to donate. 1 2 3 4 5
14. ReSOURCE informs me on how my donations will be used.
1 2 3 4 5
15. I feel that my donations to ReSOURCE have a significant impact on the community.
1 2 3 4 5
16. ReSOURCE gives me the appropriate amount of recognition for my contributions to fundraising.
1 2 3 4 5
Page | 51
[ ] 1 Yes [ ] 2 No à Go to question 21
18. Over the past 5 years, how many times have you supported ReSOURCE with in-kind donations? [ ] 1-2 times [ ] 6-10 times [ ] 3-5 times [ ] 10+ times
19. What has compelled you to support ReSOURCE through in kind donations? (Please check all that apply)
[ ] 1 To get rid of ‘junk’ [ ] 7 Inner satisfaction [ ] 2 Personal recognition [ ] 8 Appeals sent from the non-profit [ ] 3 To receive a tax break [ ] 9 Other (please specify below) [ ] 4 To help community members in need __________________________ [ ] 5 Spiritual or religious reasons __________________________ [ ] 6 To save material from the landfill
20. If you would like to elaborate on your previous answer, please use the box below. (Optional)
Section End.
Page | 52
11.1.2 Donation Patterns Regarding Non-‐Profits Other Than ReSOURCE 21. Have you supported another non-profit’s fundraising efforts through monetary donations?
[ ] 1 Yes [ ] 2 No à Go to question 26
22. What non-profit organizations other than ReSOURCE have you donated to? (Please elaborate)
23. When was the last monetary donation you made to a non-profit other than ReSOURCE? [ ] 1 2015 [ ] 3 2013 [ ] 5 Prior to 2012 [ ] 2 2014 [ ] 4 2012
24. On average, how often do you donate monetarily to other non-profits? [ ] 1 Less than once a year [ ] 3 Twice a year [ ] 5 Every month [ ] 2 Once a year [ ] 4 Three times a year [ ] 6 Every week
25. On average, per year, how much do you contribute to those non-profits? [ ] 1 Under $99 [ ] 3 $500-$999 [ ] 5 $2,000-$4,999 [ ] 2 $100-$499 [ ] 4 $1,000-$1,999 [ ] 6 $5,000 or more
26. Have you provided other non-profits with in-kind donations? [ ] 1 Yes [ ] 2 No à Go to question 47
27. What compelled you to donate to the other non-profits? (Check all that apply) [ ] 1 Appeals sent from the non-profit [ ] 7 Inner satisfaction [ ] 2 To get rid of ‘junk’ [ ] 8 Personal recognition [ ] 3 To support community outreach programs [ ] 9 To save material from landfills [ ] 4 To receive a tax break [ ] 10 Other (please specify): [ ] 5 To help community members in need _____________________________ [ ] 6 Spiritual or religious reasons
28. Over the past 5 years, how many times have you supported another non-profit with in-kind donations?
[ ] 1 1-2 times [ ] 3 6-10 times [ ] 2 3-5 times [ ] 4 10+ times
29. What do you think is the most useful type of donation? [ ] 1 In-kind [ ] 3 Volunteering [ ] 2 Monetary [ ] 4 Anything helps
30. Can you see the effects of your donations to other non-profits? [ ] 1 Yes [ ] 2 No
31. If you would like to elaborate on your previous answer, please use the box below. (Optional)
Page | 53
46. How did you find out about non-profits other than ReSOURCE to which you donate? (Please
check all that apply) [ ] 1 Internet banner advertisement [ ] 8 Recommendation from friends/relatives [ ] 2 Newspaper advertisement [ ] 9 Company website [ ] 3 Magazine advertisement [ ] 10 Meeting with a company representative [ ] 4 TV advertisement [ ] 11 External event (company sponsored or other) [ ] 5 Information provided at your office [ ] 12 Information seek [ ] 6 Through a state agency [ ] 13 Other (please specify below) [ ] 7 Letters & brochures sent to your home or ____________________________________ business ____________________________________
If you do donate to non-profits other than ReSOURCE, which of these were important in your choice to do so? (Circle one category for each question)
Ver
y U
nim
porta
nt
Uni
mpo
rtant
Som
ewha
t U
nim
porta
nt
Neu
tral
Som
ewha
t Im
porta
nt
Impo
rtant
Ver
y Im
porta
nt
32. They ask. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
33. They operate locally. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
34. Their programs focus on kids and/or young adults. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
35. Their programs focus on education. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
36. Their programs focus on health (mental and/or physical).
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
37. Their programs focus on food distribution. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
38. Their programs work on research. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
39. They do not solicit me too much. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements. (Circle one category for each question)
Stro
ngly
D
isag
ree
Dis
agre
e
Nei
ther
Agr
ee
nor D
isag
ree
Agr
ee
Stro
ngly
A
gree
40. I am familiar with the leaders (e.g., CEO, Directors, etc.) of non-profits other than ReSOURCE.
1 2 3 4 5
41. I am familiar with all programs offered by non-profits other than ReSOURCE to which I donate.
1 2 3 4 5
42. I know exactly how my donations will be used in other organizations.
1 2 3 4 5
43. A small donation to other organizations will make a big impact.
1 2 3 4 5
44. If I donate to nation-wide organizations, I will see beneficiaries in my own community.
1 2 3 4 5
45. A nation-wide organization is more effective than a regional or local organization.
1 2 3 4 5
Page | 54
47. Are you solicited by non-profits other than ReSOURCE? If yes, approximately how often (per organization)? (Please check one category)
[ ] 1 I am not solicited [ ] 3 3-4 times/year [ ] 5 7-8 times/year [ ] 2 1-2 times/year [ ] 4 5-6 times/year [ ] 6 9 or more times/year
48. What other organizations solicit you? What do they do right and wrong in their solicitation process?
Section End.
Page | 55
End of Survey, we appreciate your time. If you have questions please feel free to call John Doe at 802-‐555-‐1234.
THANKS AGAIN FOR YOUR HELP AND PROMPT REPLY
11.1.3 Demographics 49. Marital Status/ Relationship Status: Are you married or in a domestic partnership?
[ ] 1 Yes [ ] 2 No à Skip to question 51
50. Does your spouse currently hold a job? [ ] 1 Yes [ ] 2 No
51. Marital/Relationship Status: Please check only one category that applies
[ ] Single [ ] Married [ ] Domestic Partnership [ ] Widowed [ ] Divorced [ ] Separated [ ] Other
52. Do you have any children or are currently acting as caretaker for any child?
[ ] 1 Yes [ ] 2 No à Skip to question 54.
a. How many? (Please check one category) 1 [ ] 4 [ ] 2 [ ] 5 [ ] 3 [ ] 6+ [ ]
53. Do any of these children still classify as dependents?
[ ] 1 Yes [ ] 2 No
54. Are you currently employed or self-employed? [ ] 1 Yes [ ] 2 No à Skip to question 57.
55. Who is your current employer? _____________________________________________
56. What is your job position? ________________________________________________
57. Are you retired?
[ ] 1 Yes [ ] 2 No
58. What is your combined annual household income before taxes? (Please check one category) [ ] 1 Under $35,000 [ ] 3 $50,000 - $74,999 [ ] 5 $100,000 - $174,999 [ ] 2 $35,000 - $49,999 [ ] 4 $75,000 - $99,999 [ ] 6 $175,000 plus
59. Your education (Please check the highest level completed) [ ] 1 Some high school or vocational school [ ] 4 College graduate [ ] 2 High school or vocational school graduate [ ] 5 Completed some graduate school [ ] 3 Completed some college [ ] 6 Graduate degree
60. What is your age? years. 61. What is your gender?
[ ] 1 Female [ ] 2 Male [ ] 3 Other
62. What is your 5 digit zip code? ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
Page | 56
11.2 Frequency Report
11.2.1 How did you find out about ReSOURCE? (Please check all that apply) Internet Banner Advertisement Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid .00 Unchecked 71 100.0 100.0 100.0
Newspaper Advertisement Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid .00 Unchecked 67 94.4 94.4 94.4
1.00 Yes 4 5.6 5.6 100.0
Total 71 100.0 100.0
Magazine Advertisement Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid .00 Unchecked 71 100.0 100.0 100.0
TV Advertisement Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid .00 Unchecked 70 98.6 98.6 98.6
1.00 Yes 1 1.4 1.4 100.0
Total 71 100.0 100.0
Information Provided at your Office
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid .00 Unchecked 70 98.6 98.6 98.6
1.00 Yes 1 1.4 1.4 100.0
Total 71 100.0 100.0
Through a State Agency
Page | 57
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid .00 Unchecked 71 100.0 100.0 100.0
Letters & Brochures Sent to your Home or Business Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid .00 Unchecked 61 85.9 85.9 85.9
1.00 Yes 10 14.1 14.1 100.0
Total 71 100.0 100.0
ReSOURCE E-Newsletter Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid .00 Unchecked 65 91.5 91.5 91.5
1.00 Yes 6 8.5 8.5 100.0
Total 71 100.0 100.0
Recommendation from Fiends/Relatives Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid .00 Unchecked 52 73.2 73.2 73.2
1.00 Yes 19 26.8 26.8 100.0
Total 71 100.0 100.0
Company Website Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid .00 Unchecked 69 97.2 97.2 97.2
1.00 Yes 2 2.8 2.8 100.0
Total 71 100.0 100.0
Meeting with a Company Representative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid .00 Unchecked 66 93.0 93.0 93.0
1.00 Yes 5 7.0 7.0 100.0
Total 71 100.0 100.0
Page | 58
External Event Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid .00 Unchecked 69 97.2 97.2 97.2
1.00 Yes 2 2.8 2.8 100.0
Total 71 100.0 100.0
Information Seek
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid .00 Unchecked 68 95.8 95.8 95.8
1.00 Yes 3 4.2 4.2 100.0
Total 71 100.0 100.0
Other Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid .00 Unchecked 30 42.3 42.3 42.3
1.00 Yes 41 57.7 57.7 100.0
Total 71 100.0 100.0
Page | 59
Other (please specify)
at Recycle North
community involvement
Contacted by major donor/sponsor
Do not remember
don't recall
don't remember - have known about it for years
Drive Bay
Driving by the location on Pine St.
Former Employee
Friend of Board member
going to the old restor
have always know about ReSOURCE
have donated goods since its inception
have dropped off donation materials in the past
Have known about it since its inception. Don't remember how.
I forget. It was a long time ago.
I have known about Resource/Recycle North for so long now, I don't recall how I found about you.
I live in Burlington and go there every week
i was Ron Krupps neighbor and friend when he started it
I've been recycling stuff with you for years.
It was so long ago U din't remember
Its been so long I can't remember.
Janet piston is great outreach
knew director from prior connection
Knew it from ReCycle North
Knew the founder and board members
Known about it for years -- Recycle
Known ReSource for decades
Leadership Champlain project
Located In my neighborhood
Long time supporter of Recycle North
Meeting at Remodelers Council, HBRA of No. VT.
my brother works there
Not sure. Mostly wanted a place to donate used stuff.
personnel working there.
Page | 60
11.2.2 Are you aware of ReSOURCE’s Poverty Relief & Job Skills training programs (Youthbuild, Apprentice-‐style, and Work Experience programs)? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1.00 Yes 68 95.8 95.8 95.8
2.00 No 3 4.2 4.2 100.0
Total 71 100.0 100.0 11.2.3 How did you find out about ReSOURCE community outreach programs? Online Advertisement Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid .00 Unchecked 71 100.0 100.0 100.0
Print Advertisement Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid .00 Unchecked 68 95.8 95.8 95.8
1.00 Yes 3 4.2 4.2 100.0
Total 71 100.0 100.0
TV Advertisement Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid .00 Unchecked 69 97.2 97.2 97.2
1.00 Yes 2 2.8 2.8 100.0
Total 71 100.0 100.0
Social Media
Probably media coverage long ago.
Saw store in Burlington and in Morrisville
shoping at store
The Restore has been around forever.
United WAy
We support the programs and donate items.
Page | 61
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid .00 Unchecked 71 100.0 100.0 100.0
Information Provided at your Office Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid .00 Unchecked 70 98.6 98.6 98.6
1.00 Yes 1 1.4 1.4 100.0
Total 71 100.0 100.0
Know Someone In/Affected by Programs Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid .00 Unchecked 68 95.8 95.8 95.8
1.00 Yes 3 4.2 4.2 100.0
Total 71 100.0 100.0
Letters & Brochures Sent to your Home or Business Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid .00 Unchecked 51 71.8 71.8 71.8
1.00 Yes 20 28.2 28.2 100.0
Total 71 100.0 100.0
ReSOURCE E-Newsletter Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid .00 Unchecked 47 66.2 66.2 66.2
1.00 Yes 24 33.8 33.8 100.0
Total 71 100.0 100.0
Word of Mouth Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid .00 Unchecked 47 66.2 66.2 66.2
1.00 Yes 24 33.8 33.8 100.0
Total 71 100.0 100.0
ReSOURCE's Website
Page | 62
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid .00 Unchecked 62 87.3 87.3 87.3
1.00 Yes 9 12.7 12.7 100.0
Total 71 100.0 100.0
Contact with a Company Representative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid .00 Unchecked 57 80.3 80.3 80.3
1.00 Yes 14 19.7 19.7 100.0
Total 71 100.0 100.0
External Event Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid .00 Unchecked 66 93.0 93.0 93.0
1.00 Yes 5 7.0 7.0 100.0
Total 71 100.0 100.0
Information Seek Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid .00 Unchecked 71 100.0 100.0 100.0
Other Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid .00 Unchecked 62 87.3 87.3 87.3
1.00 Yes 9 12.7 12.7 100.0
Total 71 100.0 100.0
Page | 63
Other (please specify)
A number of years ago you had a fabulous writer doing the monthly or weekly email updates on programs and
what's available. It was funny and engaging and got across the mix of objectives you serve.
At the store
brother
I helped grow them
Knowing the organizations activities
professional involvement
Resource print newsletters and mailings
Think that is program that installed our solar hot water heater recently
We come to the store/center
11.2.4 Have you ever been solicited for donations by ReSOURCE? (Regardless of whether or not you made a donation) Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1.00 Yes 62 87.3 87.3 87.3
2.00 No 9 12.7 12.7 100.0
Total 71 100.0 100.0
11.2.5 Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statement: “ReSOURCE solicits me for monetary donations…” Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid 1.00 Very rarely 3 4.2 4.9 4.9
2.00 Not frequently enough 2 2.8 3.3 8.2
3.00 Appropriately 55 77.5 90.2 98.4
4.00 Frequently 1 1.4 1.6 100.0
Total 61 85.9 100.0
Missing System 10 14.1 Total 71 100.0
Page | 64
11.2.6 Are there any changes you would recommend to ReSOURCE in regards to solicitation for monetary donations? (Ex: less often, e-‐mail instead of direct mail, offer incentives, etc.) Always email - don't spend money to get email and don't share your email list. If that results in giving to those
others it is likely to reduce giving to you. There is only so much money to give.
Definitely skip the incentives, and do not go to super-frequent solicitations. BUT, I highly recommend doing much
more personal stories that capture peoples' attention and tug their heartstrings, and their commitment to the same
goals you have. In my limited fundraising experience, this is very effective. You can double your receipts if you call
(have board members call) at least your top donors, and forge a real relationship with them. Nobody has ever
asked me to give more.
don't call me (which you don't) as I donate when I go there
Email is preferable. 2 - 3 times per year
Everyone asks for donations at the end of the year; would be helpful to use a different time of year to request
donations, and only annually to people who have not donated in the past.
For years, we received one or two mailings a year and always donated. We noticed last week when we were doing
our taxes that we didn't donate in 2014 and it seems weren't solicited. So for last year, I'd say ""Not frequently
enough."" That's a serious problem in the world of fundraising.
Frequency feels about right, but tell me more local stories with more local photos. I could be wrong, but I suspect
you use some ""stock"" photos now and then with some very generic narrative. Your org oozes good stories about
real people, you've just got to tell them.
Invite donors to a facility and informational tour
no
No
No recommendations.
No recommendations. Current practice works for me.
Nope.
Perhaps rely more on e-mail - hate to see money potentially wasted on mailings and postage
Save a tree! Use e-mail.
shorter letters , I already know about it
Strengthening the website overall could make the non-profit more attractive to potential donors.
Tell how much it is taking out of the landfill by offering a place to recycle, reuse things
We give without solicitation because we support all their programs.
You're doing great
Page | 65
11.2.7 Have you supported ReSOURCE’s fundraising efforts through monetary donations? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1.00 Yes 68 95.8 95.8 95.8
2.00 No 3 4.2 4.2 100.0
Total 71 100.0 100.0
11.2.8 When was the last monetary contribution you made to ReSOURCE? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid 1.00 2015 2 2.8 3.0 3.0
2.00 2014 53 74.6 80.3 83.3
3.00 2013 8 11.3 12.1 95.5
4.00 2012 1 1.4 1.5 97.0
5.00 Prior to 2012 2 2.8 3.0 100.0
Total 66 93.0 100.0 Missing System 5 7.0 Total 71 100.0
11.2.9 On average, how often do you donate to ReSOURCE? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid 1.00 Less than once a year 7 9.9 10.4 10.4
2.00 Once a year 55 77.5 82.1 92.5
3.00 Twice a year 5 7.0 7.5 100.0
Total 67 94.4 100.0 Missing System 4 5.6 Total 71 100.0
Page | 66
11.2.10 On average, per year, how much do you contribute to ReSOURCE’s fundraising efforts? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid 1.00 Under $99 32 45.1 50.0 50.0
2.00 $100-$499 25 35.2 39.1 89.1
4.00 $1,000 - $1,999 4 5.6 6.3 95.3
6.00 $5,000 or more 3 4.2 4.7 100.0
Total 64 90.1 100.0
Missing System 7 9.9 Total 71 100.0 11.2.11 What has compelled you to support ReSOURCE with monetary donations? To Support Youthbuild Job Skills Training Programs Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid .00 Unchecked 25 35.2 35.2 35.2
1.00 Yes 46 64.8 64.8 100.0
Total 71 100.0 100.0 Poverty Relief Programs Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid .00 Unchecked 39 54.9 54.9 54.9
1.00 Yes 32 45.1 45.1 100.0
Total 71 100.0 100.0 Environmental Programs Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid .00 Unchecked 38 53.5 53.5 53.5
1.00 Yes 33 46.5 46.5 100.0
Total 71 100.0 100.0 To Help Community Members in Need Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid .00 Unchecked 25 35.2 35.2 35.2
Page | 67
1.00 Yes 46 64.8 64.8 100.0
Total 71 100.0 100.0 Spiritual or Religious Reasons Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid .00 Unchecked 70 98.6 98.6 98.6
1.00 Yes 1 1.4 1.4 100.0
Total 71 100.0 100.0 To Receive a Tax Break Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid .00 Unchecked 62 87.3 87.3 87.3
1.00 Yes 9 12.7 12.7 100.0
Total 71 100.0 100.0
Self-Fulfillment Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid .00 Unchecked 66 93.0 93.0 93.0
1.00 Yes 5 7.0 7.0 100.0
Total 71 100.0 100.0
Personal Recognition Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid .00 Unchecked 69 97.2 97.2 97.2
1.00 Yes 2 2.8 2.8 100.0
Total 71 100.0 100.0
Appeals Send from ReSOURCE
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid .00 Unchecked 57 80.3 80.3 80.3
1.00 Yes 14 19.7 19.7 100.0
Total 71 100.0 100.0
Other
Page | 68
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid .00 Unchecked 58 81.7 81.7 81.7
1.00 Yes 13 18.3 18.3 100.0
Total 71 100.0 100.0 Other (please specify)
Adult training programs
Great party at the home of the Seventh Generation founders
i helped develop a manager training program there
I'd miss you if you went out of business.
Like to puchase things there too.
Part of United Way?
Solicitation came just after install of solar hot water heater
support a friend
support of the Barre branch
Support Sheila Hollender and now Julie Atwood
Wanted to support staff who do great work and are so committed
yhe combinatio of all you do
You do important work that makes 11.2.12 If you would like to elaborate on your previous answer, please use the box below. As a long time leader at Seventh Generation, we supported Recycle North. When Sheila became a Board Member,
I wanted to support her efforts. Now Julie is on the Board and I want to support her efforts. Since I have retired from
SVG, I have reduced my annual contribution. ReSource is not a priority recipient of my charitable contributions.
Getting a personal call from Tom - who does not know me-helped also
I am inspired by how ReSOURCE fuses social justice and environmental solutions together while helping at-risk
youth. I am interested in how you are doing intersectional work.
I contribute yearly to United Way, Chittenden County
I do my giving in early December or November. I think your letter may have arrived too late in 2014.
I like everything about what yiu do. You combine environmental concerns, with training and excellent repair
servicees
It perfectly matches my values.
Page | 69
It's a great program in the community!
my son worked there
No elaboration.
Old, used materials have much more character than new ones.
ReSource is an important initiative that I value in our community not only for educational and poverty relief efforts,
but also for the intent to reuse our resources effectively.
the training program was a great intro to the population and diversity of fronts that ReSource works on. i have high
regard for Tom, your ED, and regularly find interesting items when i stop into the store
We also send hundreds of dollars worth of stuff, which should count as donations
We have donated furniture. We know people who work there.
You do important work that makes many lives better. You enable us to do the right things - use, reuse, recycle and
share.
Total 11.2.13 Please indicate your agreement with the following statements regarding donating to ReSOURCE ReSOURCE makes it easy for me to donate Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid 1.00 Strongly Disagree 2 2.8 3.0 3.0
3.00 Neutral 6 8.5 9.0 11.9
4.00 Agree 37 52.1 55.2 67.2
5.00 Strongly Agree 22 31.0 32.8 100.0
Total 67 94.4 100.0
Missing System 4 5.6 Total 71 100.0 ReSOURCE informs me on how my donations will be used Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid 1.00 Strongly Disagree 2 2.8 3.0 3.0
2.00 Disagree 4 5.6 6.1 9.1
3.00 Neutral 19 26.8 28.8 37.9
4.00 Agree 29 40.8 43.9 81.8
5.00 Strongly Agree 12 16.9 18.2 100.0
Total 66 93.0 100.0
Missing System 5 7.0
Page | 70
Total 71 100.0 I feel that my donations to ReSOURCE have a significant impact on the community Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid 1.00 Strongly Disagree 2 2.8 3.0 3.0
3.00 Neutral 10 14.1 15.2 18.2
4.00 Agree 38 53.5 57.6 75.8
5.00 Strongly Agree 16 22.5 24.2 100.0
Total 66 93.0 100.0 Missing System 5 7.0 Total 71 100.0 ReSOURCE gives me the appropriate amount of recognition for my contributions to fundraising
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid 1.00 Strongly Disagree 1 1.4 1.6 1.6
2.00 Disagree 1 1.4 1.6 3.2
3.00 Neutral 12 16.9 19.0 22.2
4.00 Agree 35 49.3 55.6 77.8
5.00 Strongly Agree 14 19.7 22.2 100.0
Total 63 88.7 100.0
Missing System 8 11.3 Total 71 100.0
11.2.14 Have you provided ReSOURCE with in-‐kind (goods or services) donations? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1.00 Yes 56 78.9 80.0 80.0
2.00 No 14 19.7 20.0 100.0
Total 70 98.6 100.0
Page | 71
Missing System 1 1.4
Total 71 100.0
11.2.15 Over the past 5 years, how many times have you supported ReSOURCE with in-‐kind donations? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid 1.00 1-2 times 9 12.7 16.7 16.7
2.00 3-5 times 20 28.2 37.0 53.7
3.00 6-10 times 10 14.1 18.5 72.2
4.00 10+ times 15 21.1 27.8 100.0
Total 54 76.1 100.0
Missing System 17 23.9
Total 71 100.0
11.2.16 What has compelled you to support ReSOURCE with in kind donations? To Get Rid of 'Junk' Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid .00 Unchecked 40 56.3 56.3 56.3
1.00 Yes 31 43.7 43.7 100.0
Total 71 100.0 100.0
Personal Recognition
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid .00 Unchecked 71 100.0 100.0 100.0
To Receive a Tax Break
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid .00 Unchecked 58 81.7 81.7 81.7
1.00 Yes 13 18.3 18.3 100.0
Total 71 100.0 100.0
Page | 72
To Help Community Members in Need
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid .00 Unchecked 26 36.6 36.6 36.6
1.00 Yes 45 63.4 63.4 100.0
Total 71 100.0 100.0
Spiritual or Religious Reasons Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid .00 Unchecked 69 97.2 97.2 97.2
1.00 Yes 2 2.8 2.8 100.0
Total 71 100.0 100.0 To Save Material from the Landfill Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid .00 Unchecked 26 36.6 36.6 36.6
1.00 Yes 45 63.4 63.4 100.0
Total 71 100.0 100.0
Satisfaction Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid .00 Unchecked 51 71.8 71.8 71.8
1.00 Yes 20 28.2 28.2 100.0
Total 71 100.0 100.0
Appeals Sent from the Non-Profit Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid .00 Unchecked 67 94.4 94.4 94.4
1.00 Yes 4 5.6 5.6 100.0
Total 71 100.0 100.0
Other Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid .00 Unchecked 61 85.9 85.9 85.9
1.00 Yes 10 14.1 14.1 100.0
Page | 73
Total 71 100.0 100.0 11.2.17 If you would like to elaborate on your previous answer, please use the box below. I like knowing that when I donate to ReSOURCE my stuff is least likely to be wasted and is more likely to be of
benefit to someone else who needs something....
i used to donate more items, but i live in williston now and do not get into BTV as often for such errands
I worry about your very existence. Goodwill, Craigslist, Habitat, and any number of human service agencies are
nipping at your heels yet the folks in Receiving on Pine Street can treat me like I'm they're biggest burden. It breaks
my heart. How you manage to keep the doors open (at least in Burlington) amazes me.
In trying to simplify my life, I'm grateful to have a place to bring household items that are perfectly fine that can be
enjoyed by someone else.
Landfill and the desire to reuse our resources are the most important reasons to me for donating
Looking for a good use for something we don't need anymore.
not to get rid of ""junk"" but to actually give pieces of usable furniture that I could -if I had time- resell.
11.2.18 Have you supported another non-‐profit’s fundraising efforts through monetary donations? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1.00 Yes 68 95.8 97.1 97.1
2.00 No 2 2.8 2.9 100.0
Total 70 98.6 100.0
Missing System 1 1.4 Total 71 100.0
11.2.19 What non-‐profit organizations other than ReSOURCE have you donated to? 25 others, too many to name
about 40 organizations.
Bike Recycle Vermont, Local Motion, lotsa charities
Boys & Girls Club Women Helping Battered Women VPR and VtPBS
BPOE, American Legion, Boy/Girl Scouts,etc.
Capstone, Food Share, Meals on Wheels, LC Family Center, United Way, River Arts and more
CareNet Pregnancy Center, HopeWorks, Red Cross, VT Foodbank, Salvation Army, Covenant House, Boys & Girls
Club of Burlington
Page | 74
Champlain Housing Trust
church-related, as well as a dozen others
Church, Hope, PCC,hospital,youth hockey,Women Safe, Library,Good Will Recycle North,LLL,MALT, Mission
Meadows, colleges, AFS
comparable organizations: Habitat, Good Will, Replays (goods, not $) plus others....
Cots Foodbank Vt Youth Conservation
COTS, Food Shelf, Bike Recycle, Irene donations.
COTS, Food Shelf, Planned Parenthood and other local and national nonprofits
COTS, HOPE WORKS, SALVATION ARMY, HABITAT FOR HUMANITY, CHITTENDEN FOOD SHELF,
VERMONT FOOD BANK, FLYNN, LANE SERIES, VABVI, UVM CANCER CTR, SPLC, NAACP, UNCF, AICF, MS
SOCIETY, RED CROSS, VT PBS, VPR, LUNG ASSOC
Cots, spectrum, food banks , thrift stores
COTS, VPR, and MANY others.
Food shelf, church, PBS, VPT, Norwich Univ.
Green Mountain Habitat,Vt. Food Bank, Spectum, Cots, Champlain Housing Trust, VYCC, VNRC, VPIRG,TNC,
VPR, VPT, Shelburne Farms, Friends of the Horticulture Farm, IRC, Amnesty International, Doctors Without
Borders, Oxfam, NRDC
humane society vpr- are they non profit? ETV vpirg local food shelf
Lake Champlain Committee VT Conservatory Africa Wildlife
Library, labor hall, historical society, project independence
Long list. Flynn Center, United Way, many more.
Lots of them: COTS, Land Trusts, Women Helping, International aid organizations
Lots. Such as vpr vtdigger aclu eff sunlight long trail
LWV, WILPH, Food Shelf, Good Will
Many of them.
many, more than 40
Many. In VT, I focus on Hunger and Poverty with donations to COTS, VT Food Bank, Chittenden Emergency Food
Shelf, and Hunger Free VT as well as environmental, arts/music and social groups.
Mchv, goodwill
mostly in the arts and education as well as medical groups doing research
multiple community, state and national organizations
NOFA VT Flynn theatre, food bank, VPR , Americorps(SerVermont) and misc others
none of ypur business
NRDC many arts groups
Numerous
ORE. / UCM of Montpelier / Planting Hope
Page | 75
Over 50 per year
Public radio public TV, food banks, medical funds
Rebuilding Together*Greater Burlington
Rural VT, Wellness Clinic, union of concerned scientists
Salvation Army, Red Cross, local volunteer fire fighters, local humane society, local rescue squad
Spectrum, Camp Ta-Cum Ta
St Lawrence Theatre
too many to list
Too many to list all but include Nature Conservancy, Save the Children, Habitat for Humanity.
TOO MANY TO NAME ALL, but a few locals: lamoille county housing authority VPIRG VBSR VT Foodbank
Waterbury Foodshelf
united way
United Way COTS
United Way, Salvation Army, Refugee Resettlement, Women Helping Battered Women, Red Cross and many more.
Vermont Food bank, Alma mater, CLif, Good News Garage International Rescue Committee
Vermont works for women Hunger free Vermont. Vermont community gardens Intervale Vycc King street
Boys and girls club Etc
VPR PBS many kickstarted campaigns
VT Land Trust, Doctors w/out Borders, Shelburne Museum and Shelburne Farm, Partners in Health, Nature
Conservancy
Vycc, gmc, red cross
Way too many to list here. We support about 80 non-profits annually.
We support many every year
11.2.20 When was the last monetary donation you made to a non-‐profit other than ReSOURCE? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid 1.00 2015 29 40.8 43.9 43.9
2.00 2014 35 49.3 53.0 97.0
3.00 2013 1 1.4 1.5 98.5
5.00 Prior to 2012 1 1.4 1.5 100.0
Total 66 93.0 100.0 Missing System 5 7.0 Total 71 100.0
Page | 76
11.2.21 On average, how often do you donate monetarily to other non-‐profits? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid 1.00 Less than once a year 2 2.8 2.9 2.9
2.00 Once a year 41 57.7 60.3 63.2
3.00 Twice a year 5 7.0 7.4 70.6
4.00 Three times a year 2 2.8 2.9 73.5
5.00 Every month 13 18.3 19.1 92.6
6.00 Every week 5 7.0 7.4 100.0
Total 68 95.8 100.0
Missing System 3 4.2
Total 71 100.0
11.2.22 On average, per year, how much do you contribute to those other non-‐profits? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid 1.00 Under $99 14 19.7 21.9 21.9
2.00 $100-$499 24 33.8 37.5 59.4
3.00 $500-$999 5 7.0 7.8 67.2
4.00 $1,000-$1,999 4 5.6 6.3 73.4
5.00 $2,000-$4,999 7 9.9 10.9 84.4
6.00 $5,000 or more 10 14.1 15.6 100.0
Total 64 90.1 100.0
Missing System 7 9.9
Total 71 100.0
Page | 77
11.2.23 Have you provided other non-‐profits with in-‐kind donations? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1.00 Yes 48 67.6 68.6 68.6
2.00 No 22 31.0 31.4 100.0
Total 70 98.6 100.0 Missing System 1 1.4 Total 71 100.0
11.2.24 What compelled you to donate to other non-‐profits? Appeals Sent from the Non-Profit
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid .00 Unchecked 56 78.9 78.9 78.9
1.00 Yes 15 21.1 21.1 100.0
Total 71 100.0 100.0
To Get Rid of 'Junk'
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid .00 Unchecked 59 83.1 83.1 83.1
1.00 Yes 12 16.9 16.9 100.0
Total 71 100.0 100.0
To Support Community Outreach Programs
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid .00 Unchecked 44 62.0 62.0 62.0
Page | 78
1.00 Yes 27 38.0 38.0 100.0
Total 71 100.0 100.0
To Receive a Tax Break
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid .00 Unchecked 56 78.9 78.9 78.9
1.00 Yes 15 21.1 21.1 100.0
Total 71 100.0 100.0
To Help Community Members in Need Frequency Percent Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid .00 Unchecked 32 45.1 45.1 45.1
1.00 Yes 39 54.9 54.9 100.0
Total 71 100.0 100.0 Spiritual or Religious Reasons Frequency Percent Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid .00 Unchecked 62 87.3 87.3 87.3
1.00 Yes 9 12.7 12.7 100.0
Total 71 100.0 100.0 Inner Satisfaction Frequency Percent Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid .00 Unchecked 50 70.4 70.4 70.4
1.00 Yes 21 29.6 29.6 100.0
Total 71 100.0 100.0 Personal Recognition Frequency Percent Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid .00 Unchecked 69 97.2 97.2 97.2
Page | 79
1.00 Yes 2 2.8 2.8 100.0
Total 71 100.0 100.0 To Save Material from Landfills Frequency Percent Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid .00 Unchecked 49 69.0 69.0 69.0
1.00 Yes 22 31.0 31.0 100.0
Total 71 100.0 100.0 Other Frequency Percent Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid .00 Unchecked 63 88.7 88.7 88.7
1.00 Yes 8 11.3 11.3 100.0
Total 71 100.0 100.0
Other (please specify)
Convenience. Some more covenirnt for me than resource
foster educational organizations, preserve the natural and built
environment, etc.
i have an on-going relationship with Americorps and donate a
lot of time to their professional training programs
to direct things we no longer need or want to people who do
need or want
to educate and help preserve the natural world
to find homes formy unwanted stuff - not junk
To get goods in the hands of those who need it . . . Here or in
Nicaragua
to support small business and entrepreneurship
11.2.25 Over the past 5 years, how many times have you supported another non-‐profit with in-‐kind donations? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid 1.00 1-2 times 4 5.6 8.9 8.9
Page | 80
2.00 3-5 times 13 18.3 28.9 37.8
3.00 6-10 times 5 7.0 11.1 48.9
4.00 10+ times 23 32.4 51.1 100.0
Total 45 63.4 100.0 Missing System 26 36.6 Total 71 100.0
11.2.26 Can you see the effects of your donations to other non-‐profits? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1.00 Yes 35 49.3 77.8 77.8
2.00 No 10 14.1 22.2 100.0
Total 45 63.4 100.0
Missing System 26 36.6
Total 71 100.0 11.2.27 If you would like to elaborate on your answers above, please use the box below. not clear if the question about amounts to other nonprofits means PER gift, or yearly total. I answered for yearly
total
Receive newsletters informing me of activities ~
There are lots of good causes in VT. I try to send a little bit ($25-$50) to many of them, but some years each gets
left out in favor of some others. (A Rotation of Donations!)
11.2.28 Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements regarding non-‐profit organizations other than ReSOURCE: They ask for donations. Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid 1.00 Very Unimporant 4 5.6 11.4 11.4
2.00 Unimportant 3 4.2 8.6 20.0
3.00 Somewhat Unimportant 1 1.4 2.9 22.9
4.00 Neutral 9 12.7 25.7 48.6
5.00 Somewhat Important 5 7.0 14.3 62.9
Page | 81
6.00 Important 12 16.9 34.3 97.1
7.00 Very Important 1 1.4 2.9 100.0
Total 35 49.3 100.0 Missing System 36 50.7 Total 71 100.0 They operate locally. Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid 1.00 Very Unimportant 1 1.4 2.3 2.3
4.00 Neutral 1 1.4 2.3 4.7
5.00 Somewhat Important 6 8.5 14.0 18.6
6.00 Important 19 26.8 44.2 62.8
7.00 Very Important 16 22.5 37.2 100.0
Total 43 60.6 100.0
Missing System 28 39.4
Total 71 100.0
Their programs focus on kids and/or young adults. Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid 1.00 Very Unimportant 2 2.8 5.0 5.0
4.00 Neutral 5 7.0 12.5 17.5
5.00 Somewhat Important 7 9.9 17.5 35.0
6.00 Important 20 28.2 50.0 85.0
7.00 Very Important 6 8.5 15.0 100.0
Total 40 56.3 100.0
Missing System 31 43.7
Total 71 100.0
Their programs focus on education Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid 2.00 Unimportant 1 1.4 2.5 2.5
Page | 82
3.00 Somewhat Unimportant 1 1.4 2.5 5.0
4.00 Neutral 2 2.8 5.0 10.0
5.00 Somewhat Important 7 9.9 17.5 27.5
6.00 Important 20 28.2 50.0 77.5
7.00 Very Important 9 12.7 22.5 100.0
Total 40 56.3 100.0
Missing System 31 43.7
Total 71 100.0 Their programs focus on health (mental and/or physical). Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid 2.00 Unimportant 2 2.8 5.4 5.4
3.00 Somewhat Unimportant 1 1.4 2.7 8.1
5.00 Somewhat Important 7 9.9 18.9 27.0
6.00 Important 18 25.4 48.6 75.7
7.00 Very Important 9 12.7 24.3 100.0
Total 37 52.1 100.0 Missing System 34 47.9 Total 71 100.0 Their programs focus on food distribution. Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid 3.00 Somewhat Unimportant 1 1.4 2.6 2.6
4.00 Neutral 5 7.0 12.8 15.4
5.00 Somewhat Important 6 8.5 15.4 30.8
6.00 Important 19 26.8 48.7 79.5
7.00 Very Important 8 11.3 20.5 100.0
Total 39 54.9 100.0 Missing System 32 45.1 Total 71 100.0 Their programs focus on research. Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Page | 83
Percent
Valid 1.00 Very Unimportant 3 4.2 8.3 8.3
2.00 Unimportant 2 2.8 5.6 13.9
3.00 Somewhat Unimportant 1 1.4 2.8 16.7
4.00 Neutral 8 11.3 22.2 38.9
5.00 Somewhat Important 12 16.9 33.3 72.2
6.00 Important 9 12.7 25.0 97.2
7.00 Very Important 1 1.4 2.8 100.0
Total 36 50.7 100.0 Missing System 35 49.3 Total 71 100.0 They do not solicit me too often. Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid 1.00 Very Unimportant 1 1.4 2.6 2.6
2.00 Unimportant 2 2.8 5.1 7.7
4.00 Neutral 10 14.1 25.6 33.3
5.00 Somewhat Important 6 8.5 15.4 48.7
6.00 Important 13 18.3 33.3 82.1
7.00 Very Important 7 9.9 17.9 100.0
Total 39 54.9 100.0
Missing System 32 45.1 Total 71 100.0
11.2.29 How did you find out about non-‐profits other than ReSOURCE to which you donate? Internet Banner Advertisement Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid .00 Unchecked 71 100.0 100.0 100.0
Newspaper Advertisement Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Page | 84
Valid .00 Unchecked 67 94.4 94.4 94.4
1.00 Yes 4 5.6 5.6 100.0
Total 71 100.0 100.0
Magazine Advertisement Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid .00 Unchecked 71 100.0 100.0 100.0
TV Advertisement Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid .00 Unchecked 70 98.6 98.6 98.6
1.00 Yes 1 1.4 1.4 100.0
Total 71 100.0 100.0 Information Provided at your Office Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid .00 Unchecked 71 100.0 100.0 100.0
Through a State Agency Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid .00 Unchecked 69 97.2 97.2 97.2
1.00 Yes 2 2.8 2.8 100.0
Total 71 100.0 100.0
Letters & Brochures Sent to your Home or Business Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid .00 Unchecked 46 64.8 64.8 64.8
1.00 Yes 25 35.2 35.2 100.0
Total 71 100.0 100.0
Recommendation from Friends/Relatives Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Page | 85
Valid .00 Unchecked 52 73.2 73.2 73.2
1.00 Yes 19 26.8 26.8 100.0
Total 71 100.0 100.0
Company Website Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid .00 Unchecked 68 95.8 95.8 95.8
1.00 Yes 3 4.2 4.2 100.0
Total 71 100.0 100.0
Meeting with an Organization Representative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid .00 Unchecked 60 84.5 84.5 84.5
1.00 Yes 11 15.5 15.5 100.0
Total 71 100.0 100.0 Looked up Organization on the Internet, Print, or Other Median
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid .00 Unchecked 63 88.7 88.7 88.7
1.00 Yes 8 11.3 11.3 100.0
Total 71 100.0 100.0
Other Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid .00 Unchecked 50 70.4 70.4 70.4
1.00 Yes 21 29.6 29.6 100.0
Total 71 100.0 100.0
Other (please specify)
Again, in many cases I don't recall how I first became aware of these non-profits. They may have been featured in
a news story in various media outlets.
associated with my church
Common knowledge in the community
Page | 86
11.2.30 Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements regarding non-‐profit organizations other than ReSOURCE: I am familiar with the leaders (e.g., CEO, Directors, etc.) of non-profits other than ReSOURCE. Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid 1.00 Strongly Disagree 7 9.9 10.6 10.6
2.00 Disagree 8 11.3 12.1 22.7
3.00 Neither Agree nor
Disagree
21 29.6 31.8 54.5
4.00 Agree 17 23.9 25.8 80.3
5.00 Strongly Agree 13 18.3 19.7 100.0
Total 66 93.0 100.0
Missing System 5 7.0
Total 71 100.0
I am familiar with all programs offered by non-profits other than ReSOURCE to which I donate.
community engagement
Community involvement
Donations to honor or memorialize others
emails
Friends, neighbors, acquaintances
information about their activities in news media
information available in community
knowledge of various nonprofits--personal or through research
Living in the community
Media coverage (free media) coverage
my professional network is deep and wide
Personal involvement
Personal research and local knowledge
radio advertisement
Solicitations in mail
VARIES. SAME LIST FOR SOME TIME
various ways
we give to organizations with which we feel a connection (do not donate to 'unknowns')
Total
Page | 87
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid 1.00 Strongly Disagree 1 1.4 1.5 1.5
2.00 Disagree 7 9.9 10.8 12.3
3.00 Neither Agree nor
Disagree
14 19.7 21.5 33.8
4.00 Agree 35 49.3 53.8 87.7
5.00 Strongly Agree 8 11.3 12.3 100.0
Total 65 91.5 100.0
Missing System 6 8.5
Total 71 100.0
I know exactly how my donations will be used in other organizations. Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid 2.00 Disagree 15 21.1 23.8 23.8
3.00 Neither Agree nor
Disagree
15 21.1 23.8 47.6
4.00 Agree 30 42.3 47.6 95.2
5.00 Strongly Agree 3 4.2 4.8 100.0
Total 63 88.7 100.0
Missing System 8 11.3
Total 71 100.0
A small donation to other organizations will make a big impact. Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid 2.00 Disagree 4 5.6 6.3 6.3
3.00 Neither Agree nor
Disagree
29 40.8 46.0 52.4
4.00 Agree 25 35.2 39.7 92.1
5.00 Strongly Agree 5 7.0 7.9 100.0
Total 63 88.7 100.0
Missing System 8 11.3
Total 71 100.0
Page | 88
If I donate to nation-wide organizations, I will see beneficiaries in my own community. Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid 1.00 Strongly Disagree 4 5.6 6.3 6.3
2.00 Disagree 13 18.3 20.6 27.0
3.00 Neither Agree nor
Disagree
27 38.0 42.9 69.8
4.00 Agree 17 23.9 27.0 96.8
5.00 Strongly Agree 2 2.8 3.2 100.0
Total 63 88.7 100.0
Missing System 8 11.3
Total 71 100.0
A nation-wide organization is more effective than a regional or local organization. Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid 1.00 Strongly Disagree 17 23.9 26.6 26.6
2.00 Disagree 32 45.1 50.0 76.6
3.00 Neither Agree nor
Disagree
13 18.3 20.3 96.9
4.00 Agree 1 1.4 1.6 98.4
5.00 Strongly Agree 1 1.4 1.6 100.0
Total 64 90.1 100.0
Missing System 7 9.9 Total 71 100.0
11.2.31 Are you solicited by non-‐profits other than ReSOURCE? If yes, approximately how often (per organization)? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid 1.00 I am not solicited 3 4.2 4.3 4.3
2.00 1-2 times/year 18 25.4 26.1 30.4
3.00 3-4 times/year 19 26.8 27.5 58.0
Page | 89
4.00 5-6 times/year 10 14.1 14.5 72.5
5.00 7-8 times/year 2 2.8 2.9 75.4
6.00 9+ times a year 17 23.9 24.6 100.0
Total 69 97.2 100.0
Missing System 2 2.8
Total 71 100.0
11.2.32 Which do you think is the most useful type of donation? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid 2.00 Monetary 26 36.6 39.4 39.4
3.00 Volunteering 5 7.0 7.6 47.0
4.00 Anything helps 35 49.3 53.0 100.0
Total 66 93.0 100.0
Missing System 5 7.0
Total 71 100.0
11.2.33 What other organizations solicit you? What do they do right and wrong in their solicitation process? Again, too many to name, but I expect a non-profit to respect my request when I've asked for a limited number of
solicitations. If not, I'll stop giving. Emails have been a problem lately. I might sign up for e-newsletters and find
myself getting way too many requests to donate. The best fundraisers are good at telling their stories about
community impact; they have a positive public face (usually a CEO who's trusted and likable); their solicitations are
well written, with good examples; they use photos well. There's nothing new here, even if the media now used vary
widely.
All of the above use direct mail and email solicitations, newsletters, annual reports. Some present short videos of
less than 10 minutes to outline their mission and accomplishments. VPIRG has a team of volunteers who solicit
once a year door-to-door. Their youthful enthusiasm and grasp of the issues is always an inspiration to provide
support.
All of them. Some are 'double dippers'- they solicit us several times per year for 'annual' donations.
Amnesty International and Tibet relief I am focusing my donations on local groups
any phone contact is not acceptable
At least 36. Wrong…to use outside fund raising companies!
COTS Vermont Foodbank Very similar to ReSource. More phone solicitation from COTS.
DON'T increase requests if I give once. Don't give me a free gift I don't want to entice a donation. Don't use paid
Page | 90
fundraisers.
Fundraiser like bike ride
Good outreach- They send appeal letter once or twice a year. Occasional newsletter keeps people on list informed
and connected– not just about the need, but about the progress being made– once or twice a year. Social media -
Front Porch Forum keeps others in the loop and may garner interest and new patrons/donors. Facebook, too.
Hard for me to name one that doesn't!
I am highly irritated by repeat and agressive soliciations. I know what folks are up to and want don't want to feel
pressured to give.
I have served on the boards or volunteered at some, others I am a member of or use.
I like personal solicitations. Not too pushy. I like to hear about specific improvements resulting from my donations
I love the Nature Conservancy's print magazine. Doctors w/out Borders and Partners in Health just get out there
and do the work and have the benefit of international media telling their stories. Vermont Land Trust: Right mix of
anecdote and statistical results.
Long list. All the usual suspects
Lots of e-mail and snail mail solicitations. Most do not see that I give religiously once a year and waste time and
resources soliciting continuously. Occasionally, the solicitations do serve as a reminder. I keep a spreadsheet with
all of the organizations to whom I donate. I give some throughout the year and usually complete my list in early
December.
many non-profits- social, environmental low key is better; too many solicitations is counter -productive; VPT and
VPR are the worst in this regard
Many. I try to evaluate the worthiness of the work they do.
Numerous. Personalization of materials and not repeating solicitations during the calendar year.
Please don't ever mail me anything. I make a habit of not donating to organizations that waste their money sending
me mail. I have email for a reason.
Political, e.g. Emily's List. Planned Parenthood. Amnesty International. CARE. Red Cross. Greenpeace. Sierra
Club. And many more.
Professional firefighters - they imply that all of the money I donate goes to the fire fighters, but in reality, a very small
amount does. I don't donate to them anymore.
Red Cross, Salvation Army, Feminists org's, I have limited income which means I need to limit who and how often I
give to.
Salvation Army, Jimmy Walk, March of Dimes, Habitat
Sharing contribution lists. Again, only so much money to give.
Some solicit too often
telephone solicitations, especially pre-recorded, don't work
They all solicit too often - some of them almost weekly. I give once a year.
to many to list
Too frequently. Most of us do what we can to help
Page | 91
Too many organizations mail too much. Increasingly I view this as a waster of money and tend to avoid them.
too many print mailings
too many to list
too many to list. they vary.
Too many to mention!
Too many to name maybe 25-30 different organizations.
UVM, CHT, COTS
VPT way too frequently
Total
11.2.34 On average, how often do you make purchases at ReSOURCE's household goods store? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid 1.00 Never 24 33.8 35.8 35.8
2.00 Once a year 17 23.9 25.4 61.2
3.00 Twice a year 13 18.3 19.4 80.6
4.00 Three times a year 9 12.7 13.4 94.0
5.00 Monthly 4 5.6 6.0 100.0
Total 67 94.4 100.0
Missing System 4 5.6
Total 71 100.0
11.2.35 Marital/Relationship Status Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid 1.00 Single 5 7.0 7.4 7.4
2.00 Widowed 2 2.8 2.9 10.3
3.00 Married 51 71.8 75.0 85.3
4.00 Divorced 10 14.1 14.7 100.0
Total 68 95.8 100.0
Missing System 3 4.2 Total 71 100.0
Page | 92
11.2.36 Does your spouse/partner currently hold a job Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1.00 Yes 32 45.1 62.7 62.7
2.00 No 19 26.8 37.3 100.0
Total 51 71.8 100.0
Missing System 20 28.2
Total 71 100.0
11.2.37 Do you have any children or are acting as caretaker for any child? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1.00 Yes 38 53.5 56.7 56.7
2.00 No 29 40.8 43.3 100.0
Total 67 94.4 100.0
Missing System 4 5.6
Total 71 100.0
11.2.38 How many children do you have or are currently acting as caretaker for? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1.00 1 10 14.1 27.8 27.8
2.00 2 15 21.1 41.7 69.4
3.00 3 8 11.3 22.2 91.7
4.00 4 2 2.8 5.6 97.2
5.00 5 1 1.4 2.8 100.0
Total 36 50.7 100.0
Missing System 35 49.3
Page | 93
Total 71 100.0
11.2.39 Do any of these children currently classify as dependents? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1.00 Yes 16 22.5 43.2 43.2
2.00 No 21 29.6 56.8 100.0
Total 37 52.1 100.0
Missing System 34 47.9
Total 71 100.0 11.2.40 Are you currently employed or self-‐employed? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1.00 Yes 41 57.7 61.2 61.2
2.00 No 26 36.6 38.8 100.0
Total 67 94.4 100.0
Missing System 4 5.6
Total 71 100.0
11.2.41 Are you retired? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1.00 Yes 23 32.4 88.5 88.5
2.00 No 3 4.2 11.5 100.0
Total 26 36.6 100.0
Missing System 45 63.4
Total 71 100.0
Page | 94
11.2.42 Who is your current employer? An energy company (fuel oil, propane, solar, wind, etc.)
Career Nertworks
CSC
Fairfax church
Headwaters Strategy, LLC
maine medical center
my own business
nonprofit sector
Retired
Saint Michael's College
school system
self
Self
Self employed
self-employed
Self-Employed
Studio 96
uvm med center
UVM Med center
11.2.43 What is your job position? Account Manager
Asset Manager
CEO
consultant
Consultant
Consulting
Controller
customer service
DESIGNER / Seamstress
General Manager, CEO
historical novelist
LCMHC in private practice
Page | 95
Minister
nurse
of counsel
owner
president
Professor
psychologist
Quality Inspector
Queen (aka owner/president)
RN
User Experience Desig - Software Dev
Total
11.2.44 What is your current combined annual household income before taxes? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid 1.00 Under $35,000 4 5.6 8.3 8.3
2.00 $35,000 - $49,999 5 7.0 10.4 18.8
3.00 $50,000 - $74,999 4 5.6 8.3 27.1
4.00 $75,000 - $99,999 9 12.7 18.8 45.8
5.00 $100,000 - $174,999 13 18.3 27.1 72.9
6.00 $175,000 plus 13 18.3 27.1 100.0
Total 48 67.6 100.0
Missing System 23 32.4 Total 71 100.0
11.2.45 What is the highest level of education you completed? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid 2.00 High school or
vocational school graduate
1 1.4 1.6 1.6
3.00 Completed some college 3 4.2 4.7 6.3
Page | 96
4.00 College graduate 15 21.1 23.4 29.7
5.00 Completed some
graduate school
8 11.3 12.5 42.2
6.00 Graduate degree 37 52.1 57.8 100.0
Total 64 90.1 100.0
Missing System 7 9.9
Total 71 100.0
11.2.46 What is your age in years? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid 12 16.9 16.9 16.9
27 1 1.4 1.4 18.3
43 1 1.4 1.4 19.7
44 1 1.4 1.4 21.1
45 2 2.8 2.8 23.9
48 1 1.4 1.4 25.4
50 1 1.4 1.4 26.8
50+ 1 1.4 1.4 28.2
51 1 1.4 1.4 29.6
52 1 1.4 1.4 31.0
55 1 1.4 1.4 32.4
56 4 5.6 5.6 38.0
57 1 1.4 1.4 39.4
58 1 1.4 1.4 40.8
59 2 2.8 2.8 43.7
60 3 4.2 4.2 47.9
61 2 2.8 2.8 50.7
62 1 1.4 1.4 52.1
63 3 4.2 4.2 56.3
64 4 5.6 5.6 62.0
65 3 4.2 4.2 66.2
66 2 2.8 2.8 69.0
67 3 4.2 4.2 73.2
68 1 1.4 1.4 74.6
Page | 97
69 1 1.4 1.4 76.1
70 2 2.8 2.8 78.9
71 2 2.8 2.8 81.7
72 1 1.4 1.4 83.1
73 1 1.4 1.4 84.5
75 1 1.4 1.4 85.9
76 1 1.4 1.4 87.3
77 1 1.4 1.4 88.7
79 1 1.4 1.4 90.1
81 1 1.4 1.4 91.5
82 1 1.4 1.4 93.0
87 1 1.4 1.4 94.4
90 1 1.4 1.4 95.8
95 1 1.4 1.4 97.2
over 70 1 1.4 1.4 98.6
Seniors over 65 1 1.4 1.4 100.0
Total 71 100.0 100.0
11.2.47 What is your gender? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid 1.00 Female 42 59.2 64.6 64.6
2.00 Male 23 32.4 35.4 100.0
Total 65 91.5 100.0
Missing System 6 8.5
Total 71 100.0
11.2.48 What is your 5 digit zip code? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid 16 22.5 22.5 22.5
04103 1 1.4 1.4 23.9
05089 1 1.4 1.4 25.4
05148 1 1.4 1.4 26.8
Page | 98
05401 8 11.3 11.3 38.0
05403 3 4.2 4.2 42.3
05408 1 1.4 1.4 43.7
05445 2 2.8 2.8 46.5
05446 2 2.8 2.8 49.3
05452 2 2.8 2.8 52.1
05461 1 1.4 1.4 53.5
05465 4 5.6 5.6 59.2
05482 5 7.0 7.0 66.2
05487 1 1.4 1.4 67.6
05489 1 1.4 1.4 69.0
05491 1 1.4 1.4 70.4
05495 5 7.0 7.0 77.5
05602 4 5.6 5.6 83.1
05641 3 4.2 4.2 87.3
05661 1 1.4 1.4 88.7
05672 1 1.4 1.4 90.1
05679 1 1.4 1.4 91.5
05733 1 1.4 1.4 93.0
10024 1 1.4 1.4 94.4
10025 1 1.4 1.4 95.8
80209 1 1.4 1.4 97.2
97212 1 1.4 1.4 98.6
Chittenden County 1 1.4 1.4 100.0
Total 71 100.0 100.0
Page | 99
11.3 Bibliography 1. Aaker, Jennifer L. & Akutsu, Satoshi, (2009), Why Do People Give? The Role of Identity in Giving. Stanford University. Retrieved from http://EconPapers.repec.org/PePEc:ecl:stabus:2027
2. Adloff, F. (2008, November 19). What encourages charitable giving and philanthropy? McMaster University. Retrieved March 2, 2015, from http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=6373288&fileId=S0144686X08008295
3. Andreoni, J., Brown, E., & Rischall, I. Charitable Giving by Married Couples: Who Decides and Why Does it Matter?, Retrieved March 10, 2015 from https://ideas.repec.org/p/mcm/cilnwp/32.html
4. Curtis, L., Edwards, C., Fraser, K., Gudelsky, S., Holmquist, J., Thornton, K., & Sweetser, K. (2010). Adoption of social media for public relations by nonprofit organizations. Public Relations Review, 90-92. Retrieved March 10, 2015, from http://ac.els-cdn.com/S0363811109001738/1-s2.0-S0363811109001738-main.pdf?_tid=4f887bfa-c835-11e4-9cb2-00000aacb360&acdnat=1426109382_4f38c84b819fa185b4bf9c1977cc4c31
5. Decher, L. (1991, January 1). Recycle North set to open. Burlington Free Press. Retrieved March 12, 2015, from http://www.resourcevt.org/publicdocs/about_bfp.pdf
6. Department for Children and Families. (n.d.). Retrieved March 12, 2015, from http://dcf.vermont.gov/esd/reach_up
7. Edwards, R., Quincy, R., & Lu, S. (2012, September 1). Overview of Nonprofit Sector in the United States. Retrieved March 11, 2015, from http://socialwork.rutgers.edu/Libraries/Huamin/Brochure_3.sflb.ashx
8. Fennis, B., Janssen, L., & Vohs, K. (2009, January 1). Acts of Benevolence: A Limited-Resource Account of Compliance with Charitable Requests. Retrieved March 10, 2015, from http://www.Researchgate.net/publication/46553782_Acts_of_Benevolence_A_Limited-Resource_Account_of_Compliance_with_Charitable_Requests
9. Fritz, J. (n.d.). IRS Classifications for Nonprofits. Retrieved March 12, 2015, from http://nonprofit.about.com/od/nonprofitbasics/a/classifications.htm
10. Hall, P. (n.d.). Historical Perspectives on Nonprofit Organizations in the United States. Retrieved March 12, 2015, from http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/phall/Herman-CH1.pdf
11. Lee, Y., & Chang, C. (2007). Who Gives What To Charity? Characteristics Affecting Donation Behavior. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 1173-1180. Retrieved March 12, 2015, from http://www.sbp-journal.com/index.php/sbp/article/view/1658
12. McKeever, B., & Pettijohn, S. (2014, October). The Nonprofit Sector in Brief 2014. Retrieved March 11, 2015, from http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/413277-Nonprofit-Sector-in-Brief-2014.pdf
13. Parker, S., & Matthias, T. (2014). Charitable donations by the self-employed. MyIdeas, 43(4). Retrieved March 11, 2015, from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/sbusec/v43y2014i4p899-916.html
Page | 100
14. ReSOURCE VT History, Burlington, Vermont 05401. (n.d.). Retrieved March 12, 2015, from http://www.resourcevt.org/history
15. ReTRAIN VT, Burlington, Vermont, ReSOURCE, 05401. (n.d.). Retrieved March 12, 2015, from http://www.retrainvt.org/retrain/home
16. Saxton, G., & Wang, L. (2014). The Social Network Effect: The Determinants of Giving Through Social Media. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 45(5), 850-868. Retrieved March 11, 2015, from http://nvs.sagepub.com/content/43/5/850.full.pdf html.
17. Thornton, J. (2006). Nonprofit Fund-Raising in Competitive Donor Markets. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 204-224. Retrieved March 12, 2015, from http://nvs.sagepub.com/content/35/2/204.short
18. Wang, L., & Ashcraft, R. (2014). Organizational Commitment and Involvement: Explaining the Decision to Give to Associations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 61S-83S. Retrieved March 12, 2015, from http://nvs.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/12/12/0899764013515755
19. Waters, R., Burnett, E., Lamm, A., & Lucas, J. (2009). Engaging stakeholders through social networking: How nonprofit organizations are using Facebook. Public Relations Review, 102-106. Retrieved March 12, 2015, from http://ac.els-cdn.com/S0363811109000046/1-s2.0-S0363811109000046-main.pdf?_tid=491847aa-c835-11e4-887c-00000aacb362&acdnat=1426109377_7ca895c93d141a942d2d47fc7292931d
top related