# Presentation: 086534

## 2003 CFC REGIONAL WORKSHOP

***DONOR RESEARCH –***
***101, 102 AND BEYOND***

## INTRODUCTION -

***  ******Review Results of 1999 Focus Groups***

***  ******Report on 2002 Focus Groups***

*** ******Relay Local Donor Research***

*** ******Where Do We Go From Here...***

## 1999 FOCUS GROUPS –

***1999 FOCUS GROUPS –***
***THE COMBINED FEDERAL CAMPAIGN:***
***A QUALITATIVE EXPLORATION OF CAMPAIGN FILMS***

## What works for donors and non-donors?

***What motivates giving?***
***What overcomes barriers?***

_***PURPOSE -***_

## TEST UNDERSTANDING &	ASSUMPTIONS:

***  ******Key Messages***
*** ******Incentives***
*** ******Endorsements***

## METHODOLOGY:

***Donor Group***
***Non-Donor Group***
***Other Criteria***
***Mix of Sex, Ages & Ethnic Background***
***Civilian, Military & Postal***
***Labor & Management***
***Philanthropic***

## LEADERSHIP ENDORSEMENTS

***Verbal endorsements appeared to have little impact (you expect them to say that).***

***Agreement was reached that leaders setting a good example through their own participation was favorable.***

## INCENTIVES -

*** ******Participants saw little value in incentives (I’ll give because I want to)***

*** ******There was concern about using money for incentives that could otherwise be used for charitable programs and services***

## Food!

_***Food!***_

***Of all the incentives discussed, food had the greatest appeal***

**Pamela B. Haberstroh:**

## VOLUNTEERISM -

_***VOLUNTEERISM -***_

## AWARENESS OF CFC -

***While awareness of the CFC was universal among donors & non-donors alike, there was a wide-ranging and inconsistent level of knowledge.***

*** ******From a 17 year military veteran – “It’s a civilian thing.”***

*** “******It’s the government form of United Way.”***

## Furthermore...

***There was no knowledge that LFCC’s exist to give federal employee oversight of the CFC.  Issues such as the approval of all participating charities by federal employees and the approval by LFCC’s of local CFC budgets and operations were completely new to focus group participants.***

## CONTRIBUTOR’S GUIDES/BROCHURES

***Reactions to CFC contributor’s guides were, more or less, as expected.  Although, for the most part, guides were widely available, they are found to be too big, to contain too many charities and confusing and hard to use.***

## CFC –

_*** ***__***LEVEL OF UNDERSTANDING ***_

***The lack of knowledge and level of misunderstanding about various aspects of the CFC was truly alarming.  While donors did seem to possess a greater level of understanding about the CFC, even their level of ignorance about related issues is a cause for concern.***

## WHY DONORS GIVE -

***Donors indicated that they give because the CFC is convenient and efficient.  Furthermore, focus group participants disagreed with the notion that they give to ensure that programs and services are available for them in the future. Apparently, this did not enter into their reasons to participate.***

## Donors were more clearly driven, seduced and motivated by the demonstration of need.

## Non-donors, on the other hand, recognized need, but did not react with compassionate giving.

***Once acknowledging the need, non-donors stopped themselves with rational arguments.***

***Non-donors were questioning and cynical.  They demanded to be convinced that donations are well spent.***

## NON-DONORS (CONT’D) -

***In addition to resisting perceived pressures to give, non-donors also cited the following additional reasons for their lack of participation:***

***Ignorance of the CFC mission***

***Uncertainty of the value of the CFC***

***Concern about the true charitable intentions of the CFC***

## KEY MESSAGES -

_***KEY MESSAGES -***_

***Donors focused on those messages geared toward helping people.***

***They said, “charities in the CFC focus on people who have real problems.”***

## While non-donors leaned toward those messages that centered on their ability to control their donations.

***While ******non-donors****** leaned toward those messages that centered on their ability to control their donations.***

***The CFC sends most of your gift to the charity that you support by keeping your overhead low.***

***You can direct your gift to the charities that you choose to support.***

## RECTIONS TO CAMPAIGN FILMS

_***RECTIONS TO CAMPAIGN FILMS***_

*** ******More Than A Gift***

*** ******Living Proof***

*** ******I Did It***

## Reactions to the films were largely positive. In particular, respondents reported that “More Than A Gift” and “Living Proof” 

***Demonstrated need in a heartfelt way***

***Portrayed the needy as vulnerable, sympathetic, and blameless***

***Uplifted the spirit and inspired***

***Created a desire to give***

## In terms of the number of stories shown, there appears to be value in both the single story approach as well as in multiple stories.

***It is important that the CFC should not be seen as “just fixing problems” that results in an endless cycle of giving***

***The skepticism of non-donors may be somewhat dispelled by giving specifics in the films about the types of assistance provided, their costs, etc.***

## Donors and Non-Donors reacted differently to the films:

***Donors****** indicated that the films touched their emotions and they reacted with a truly compassionate desire to give***

## Non-Donors: 

***Acknowledged the need demonstrated by the films, but detached themselves from taking action.***

***Did not questions legitimacy of need, but did question whether the CFC presented the best/right solution to the problem.***

## Reactions to the short film “I Did It” were mixed.

***Donors found it to be less appealing and less effective.  Some said its message lost track of why people give.***

***Non-Donors were more forgiving.  The found it to be fun, light-hearted and an “invitation to join in.”***

## CONCLUSIONS: 

_*** ***__***FILM RECOMMENDATIONS***_

***The use of stories about people as an emotionally compelling demonstration of the need to give is valuable.***

***The idea of uplift or inspiration is important.  It is important to show an improvement in the human condition as well as movement toward a better place.***

## Scrolling “what your dollars will buy information” across the bottom of the screen will provide concrete examples of the power of the CFC.

***The value of ******volunteerism****** on the part of federal employees should be highlighted.***

***Those ******key messages****** found to be valuable should be given importance in the film.***

## Overall, it was learned that the film has a much higher impact on donors.  Accordingly, it is recommended that the film be geared toward donors rather than for use as a conversion piece for non-donors.  Given the lack of understanding about the CFC, however, there should be an educational component to the film.

## CONCLUSIONS:

***GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS***

***That the ******key messages****** used in all promotional materials be honed down to those felt to be effective by focus group participants.***

***That all plans for the CFC reflect the dire need for****** ******education.***

## That two important messages be conveyed in a variety of venues -

***That two important messages be conveyed in a variety of venues -***

***Donors do not give out of self-interest.  They give out of a true sense of ******altruism.***

***The importance of ******volunteerism****** be conveyed.***

## That focus groups should be continued throughout the country in future years, possibly in conjunction with OPM/CFC Regional meetings.

***That focus groups should be continued throughout the country in future years, possibly in conjunction with OPM/CFC Regional meetings.***

## 2002 FOCUS GROUPS –

***2002 FOCUS GROUPS –***
***THE COMBINED FEDERAL CAMPAIGN:***
***DONORS AND NON-DONORS:***
***EMPLOYEES AGES 18  - 40***

## PURPOSE:

***ATTITUDES, PERCEPTIONS & LEVEL OF KNOWLEDGE ***
***VOLUNTEERISM & CHARITABLE GIVING***
***GENERAL CFC ISSUES***
***CFC & CHARITABLE GIVING – SEPTEMBER 11******TH***

_***PURPOSE:***_

## METHODOLOGY:

***DONOR GROUP ***
***NON-DONOR GROUP***
***OTHER CRITERIA - CIVILIAN, MILITARY, POSTAL REPRESENTATION***

## KEY FINDINGS:

_***GENERAL***_

## KNOWLEDGE OF CFC –

***For the most part, respondents appeared to have a good basic understanding of the CFC.  ***
***Newer employees seemed to be more uncertain and to have more questions about the CFC.***

## Respondents reported that they witnessed “loud and clear” announcements that the campaign was underway.

***Special events related to the campaign were also mentioned.***

## In addition, non-donors indicated that all of the announcements and information can become “too much” –

***In addition, ******non-donors****** indicated that all of the announcements and information can become “too much” –***
***  “******Four weeks of inundation.”***
***  “******The process is cut and dried.”***
***  “******They go overboard.”***

## CFC VOLUNTEERS -

_***CFC VOLUNTEERS -***_

## ORGANIZATIONAL PRESSURE TO GIVE -

***Through a desire to conform to the culture of the workplace.***
*** ******Through overtures to participate that sometimes feel like pressure – “They force it on us..they track how many people participate and force us to give.”***

## Furthermore,  there was particular sensitivity to agency goals for CFC participation –

***  “******It puts pressure on for no particular reason.  The agency doesn’t get a cut, so why should we care?***
***“******Too much hype is causing a negative reaction.”***
***“******They agency gets good publicity if they meet their goals.”***

## PERCEPTION OF CHARITIES -

***Respondents generally felt that there are many (even too many) charities in the CFC.  Further, they assume that ***_***most ***_***of the charities are bona fide, but are not sure about ***_***all***_*** of them.***
*** “******Every Tom, Dick and Harry.”***
*** “******Anybody can be on the list.”***

## Related concerns included:

***There are too many charities listed to look through and decide among.***
***There are too many charities to fund properly.  This made some employees feel that they were forced to designate as their only practical option.***
***The question was raised – “How can my $100 be divided that far?”***

## Further, participants were not mollified to learn that participating charities are screened and approved by federal employees.

*** “******Which federal employees?”***
*** “******What criteria are used?”***

## CONTRIBUTOR’S GUIDES -

***Several participants indicated that they see the contributors’ guides short-lived usefulness as a source of waste.***
*** “******All that paper..save some trees.”***
*** “******That’s where some of our donations go.”***

## DONORS INDICATED THAT THEY GIVE THROUGH THE CFC BECAUSE –

_***DONORS INDICATED THAT THEY GIVE THROUGH THE CFC BECAUSE –***_
***It makes them feel better about themselves.***
*** ******It is expected by the workplace.***
*** ******The CFC makes giving easy.***

## The following potential benefits for offering CFC information on-line rather than through the contributors’ guide were mentioned by respondents –

***The following potential benefits for offering CFC information ******on-line****** rather than through the contributors’ guide were mentioned by respondents –***
*** ******It would give everyone 24/7 access to the information.***
*** ******It would possibly provide a better search function, making it easier to pinpoint charities more quickly.***
*** ******Would result in no wasted paper.***
*** ******All of the above.***
*** ******None of the above.***

## Additional reasons offered by donors - 

***Additional reasons offered by donors - ***
*** ******Tax advantages***
***The CFC acts as a “tickle” to remind you to give.***
*** ******You can designate the charity of your choice.***

## Donors also said that their CFC donations are easy to make and the easiest to track.  However, it was felt that, in some ways, CFC donations were often seen more as fulfilling an obligation that as a result of passionate giving.

***Donors also said that their CFC donations are easy to make and the easiest to track.  However, it was felt that, in some ways, CFC donations were often seen more as fulfilling an obligation that as a result of passionate giving.***
***“ ******There are charities that I feel more strongly about that are my main charities.”***

## Donors cited the following three reasons as factors that would influence their decisions to give through the CFC –

*** ******Knowing how donations are handled***
*** ******Availability of  CFC information ***
*** ******Personal employment status***

## In addition, the following three reasons were seen as much less important in prompting donors to give –

***In addition, the following three reasons were seen as much less important in prompting donors to give –***
*** ******Status of local economy***
*** ******Marketing of the CFC***
*** ******Peer pressure and management support to give through the CFC***

## Furthermore, donors mentioned several ways in which they might be encouraged to increase their CFC donations –

*** ******The chance to pledge online (concerns existed about those who are “computer-phobic”).***
*** ******The chance to personalize donations.***
***The opportunity to alter donations outside of the campaign period.***

## With a resounding “no,” the universal response was that giving to charities using credit cards was a BAD idea.

## VOLUNTEERISM –

*** ******Many donors indicated that they already volunteer.***
*** ******Respondents saw no direct link between volunteerism and the CFC.***
*** ******The feeling was reported that volunteerism is quietly discouraged in the workplace.***

## In the end, according to  respondents, good financial times (e.g. bigger paychecks) seemed to be the only likely predictor of larger gifts to the CFC.

## DONORS - SUMMARY

_***DONORS - SUMMARY***_

*** ******Donors need to be made to feel good about their CFC donations.***
*** ******The chance to give online may help in increasing CFC contributions.***
*** ******The emotional tie between donors and their CFC charities needs to be strengthened.***

## Why Non-Donors Don’t Give –

_***Why Non-Donors Don’t Give –***_
_***Background***_
*** ******Non CFC donors do support charity***
*** ******Supportive of the needs arising from September 11******th***
*** ******Want more than just “writing a check.”***

## Non-donors provided the following as the reasons that they don’t give through the CFC:

*** ******They’re not trusting of the process.***
*** ******They see the CFC as a “middle-man.”***
*** ******Gifts outside of the CFC provide greater personal satisfaction.***

## Other reasons cited by non-donors for their decision to forego the CFC included:

***Other reasons cited by non-donors for their decision to forego the CFC included:***
*** ******Giving outside of the CFC makes donors feel that they have more control of their money.***
*** ******Non-donors have an anti-authoritarian slant toward the CFC.***

## Factors such as the state of the local economy and management support of the CFC were cited by non-donors as unimportant influences in their decisions about CFC participation.

## The only factors cited by non-donors as important concerning their CFC donations were:

***Knowing how donations are handled***
***Personal employment status***

## In fact, the following factors all elicited negative feelings about the CFC –

*** ******Marketing of the CFC***
*** ******Peer pressure to donate ***
*** ******Management support of the CFC***
*** ******Availability of CFC information***
*** ******Status of the local economy***

## Non-donors went on to suggest the following two factors as possible encouragements for them to give through the CFC:

*** ******The chance to give online***
*** ******The opportunity to donate using credit cards (although this also raised some concern).***

## VOLUNTEERISM -

***The opportunity to volunteer would not encourage non-donors to give.  Non-donors stated that the issue of volunteerism does not address the core concerns that they have about the efficiency of donating through the CFC.***

## NON-DONORS - SUMMARY

_***NON-DONORS - SUMMARY***_

*** ******Non-donors need to see that contributing through the CFC gets more money to charities, not less.***
*** ******The focus needs to be shifted from the CFC to participating charities – from the process to the ultimate objective.***
*** ******The opportunity to personalize donations may also be an inducement.***

## Fall 2001 Campaign Film -

***Both donors and non-donors were shown the Fall 2001 campaign film.  While donors were positive about the film, non-donors remained skeptical.***

## Donors said that, had they seen the film, they may have given more.

***Donors said that, had they seen the film, they may have given more.***
*** ******Non-donors resisted the film because “it made them feel guilty.”  Also, the film did not address their core concerns about the CFC.***
*** ******The global aspect of the film may have gone too far with some respondents. ***

## Key Campaign Messages -

***Both groups agreed that the following CFC key messages were important:***
***You can help real people with real problems***
***You can direct your CFC donation(s)***
***The CFC has low overhead***

## CFC key messages found to be less important were:

***The CFC is YOUR campaign***
*** ******Federal employees screen charities (not enough information)***
*** ******Your fellow employees need you***

## Implications/Recommendations -

*** ******Although there is an awareness of the CFC, at times the message may be inadequate or that the wrong elements are being conveyed.***
***Online pledging holds some promise.***
***The concept that federal employees screen charities needs to be more clearly defined.***

## What Can Be Done to Convert

_***What Can Be Done to Convert***_
_*** ***__***Non-Donors -***__*** ***_
*** ******Reach new employees before they have formed their CFC decision based upon partial or misinformation.***
*** ******Avoid “high-pressure” tactics.***
*** ******Emphasize and re-emphasize advantages to charities of fundraising through the CFC.***

## How We Can Achieve Our Objectives -

*** ******Effectively communicate the efficiencies and low overhead of the CFC.***
*** ******Help charities to more directly touch potential donors.***
***Emphasize results for the charities rather than the workplace.***

## For non-donors we need to reposition the CFC 

***from a controlling and authoritarian ***_***BIG BROTHER ***_***to a big-hearted brother lending a practical hand to charities in need***
***from bungling and inefficient ***_***BIG GOVERNMENT***_*** to a smooth-flowing pipeline that lets money flow directly and intact from donor to charity. ***

## Special attention also needs to be given to:

*** ******Special events****** geared toward the CFC***
*** ******Explaining how ******daycare facilities****** at federal worksites qualify for participation.***

## Efforts to Retain Current Donors

_***& Increase Their Donations -***_
*** ******Donors reported that they give because it makes them feel good about themselves.  Make this a priority not only during the campaign, but year-round.***

##  Explore the potential for online giving with the following additional options:

*** ******The opportunity to personalize donations.***
*** ******The chance to alter donations outside of the traditional campaign period.***

## Future Campaign Films -

*** ******Many donors reported that they liked the film, but did not have the chance to see it during the campaign.  In that the film has the greatest potential impact on donors, every effort should be made to ensure that it is widely available.***
*** ******Non-donor core concerns about the CFC should be incorporated into the film’s message.***

## CFC DONOR RESEARCH 

***CFC DONOR RESEARCH ***
***AT THE LOCAL LEVEL***

## RECOMMENDATIONS FROM EXPERIENCE –

*** ******Be careful that your local donor research efforts comply with CFC regulations.  Do not use donor lists for research.***
*** ******Use the assistance of professionals whenever possible.***

## RESEARCH CURRENTLY UNDERWAY IN DENVER –

***Scott Shirai, Executive Director, Denver Metro CFC reported that:***
*** ******Local focus groups were planned for late February or early March***
*** ******Just completing a very successful on-line survey of donors and non-donors.***

##  Survey started 12/30/02 and would run for approximately one month.

*** ******Survey started 12/30/02 and would run for approximately one month.***
***Appeared on web site – ***_[www.cfcmetrodenver.org](http://www.cfcmetrodenver.org/)__._
*** ******First three weeks yielded 613 responses.  62 of these were from the target audience (non-donors for past two years).***

## Demographics of Denver respondents –

*** ******work at 10 or more different federal agencies.***
*** ******have 10 years or less of federal employment.***
*** ******earn $41,000 to $45,000 annually.***
*** ******31 to 35 years old***
*** ******at least 8 volunteer with CFC charities.***
***52 gave average of $501 - $750 last year.***

## REASONS DONORS REPORTED THAT THEY DIDN’T GIVE –

*** ******Feeling pressured to contribute***
*** “******We’re here to work, not to give what little we have to a ‘sanctioned’ organization***
*** ******avoiding the middle person***

## Non-Donors Would Reconsider If –

*** ******they had more and better information about the charities and the CFC***
*** ******they believed in the organization or cause***
*** ******they knew someone involved in the campaign or could be helped by it***

## DENVER SURVEY: CONCLUSIONS – 

_***DENVER SURVEY: CONCLUSIONS – ***_
*** ******There is a need to communicate more fully throughout the year and not just at campaign time.  Toward this end, they are working to have articles placed year-round about charities and/or clients who are helped by the CFC.***
_*** ***_

## DONOR RESEARCH -

_***DONOR RESEARCH -***_

_***WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE.....***_