ReSOURCE-A Marketing Research Study-Final Draft

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


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



Internet banner advertisement 0.00% 0

Magazine advertisement 0.00% 0


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)


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


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



Information seek 0.00% 0

Online advertisement 0.00% 0

Social Media 0.00% 0


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)


Response Count

Yes 95.8% 68

No 4.2% 3


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)


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


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)?


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


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?


Response Count

2015 3.0% 2 2014 80.3% 53 2013 12.1% 8 2012 1.5% 1 Prior to 2012 3.0% 2


7.5.2 Table 4.2 Q.20) When was the last monetary donation you made to a non-profi t other than ReSOURCE?


Response Count

2015 43.9% 29 2014 53.0% 35 2013 1.5% 1 2012 0.0% 0 Prior to 2012 1.5% 1


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?


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


7.5.4 Table 4.4 Q.21) On average, how often do you donate monetari ly to other non-profi ts?


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


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


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?


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


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)


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


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)


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


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


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


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


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


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"


"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


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%


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


Year Count 14 4 18


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%


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


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


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?


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

e-mail

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


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


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


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


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


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


Percent


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


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


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


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


Percent

Valid .00 Unchecked 71 100.0 100.0 100.0

To Receive a Tax Break


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


11.2.24 What compelled you to donate to other non-‐profits? Appeals Sent from the Non-Profit


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'


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Total 71 100.0

Their programs focus on kids and/or young adults. Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent


4.00 Neutral 5 7.0 12.5 17.5


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


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


4.00 Neutral 2 2.8 5.0 10.0


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


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



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


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


2.00 Unimportant 2 2.8 5.6 13.9


4.00 Neutral 8 11.3 22.2 38.9


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


2.00 Unimportant 2 2.8 5.1 7.7

4.00 Neutral 10 14.1 25.6 33.3


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Percent


2.00 Disagree 7 9.9 10.8 12.3


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


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


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


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


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


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


2.00 Disagree 13 18.3 20.6 27.0


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


Total 71 100.0

A nation-wide organization is more effective than a regional or local organization. Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent


2.00 Disagree 32 45.1 50.0 76.6


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

Documents

ReSOURCE-A Marketing Research Study-Final Draft