2003 CFC REGIONAL WORKSHOP

1
2003 CFC REGIONAL WORKSHOP

• DONOR RESEARCH
• 101, 102 AND BEYOND

2
INTRODUCTION -

• Review Results of 1999 Focus Groups

• Report on 2002 Focus Groups

• Relay Local Donor Research

• Where Do We Go From Here

3
1999 FOCUS GROUPS THE COMBINED FEDERAL
CAMPAIGN A QUALITATIVE EXPLORATION OF CAMPAIGN
FILMS
4
PURPOSE -

• What works for donors and non-donors?
• What motivates giving?
• What overcomes barriers?

5

• TEST UNDERSTANDING ASSUMPTIONS
• Key Messages
• Incentives
• Endorsements

6

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

7
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.
8
INCENTIVES -

• Participants saw little value in incentives
  (Ill give because I want to)

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

9
Pamela B. Haberstroh
Food!
Of all the incentives discussed, food had the
greatest appeal
10
VOLUNTEERISM -
Volunteerism was thought to have a potential
increase on CFC funding in that people tend to
give more when they have a connection and
commitment.
11
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 Its a
  civilian thing.

• Its the government form of United Way.

12
Furthermore
There was no knowledge that LFCCs 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 LFCCs of local CFC budgets and operations
were completely new to focus group participants.
13
CONTRIBUTORS GUIDES/BROCHURES
Reactions to CFC contributors 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.
14
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.
15
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.
16
Donors were more clearly driven, seduced and
motivated by the demonstration of need.
17

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.
18
NON-DONORS (CONTD) -
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

19
KEY MESSAGES -
Donors focused on those messages geared toward
helping people.
They said, charities in the CFC focus on people
who have real problems.
20
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.

21
RECTIONS TO CAMPAIGN FILMS

• More Than A Gift

• Living Proof

• I Did It

22
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

23

• 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.

24
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
25
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.

26
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.
27
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.

28

• 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.

29
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.
30
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.

31

• 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.

32
That focus groups should be continued throughout
the country in future years, possibly in
conjunction with OPM/CFC Regional meetings.
33
2002 FOCUS GROUPS THE COMBINED FEDERAL
CAMPAIGN DONORS AND NON-DONORS EMPLOYEES AGES
18 - 40
34
PURPOSE

• ATTITUDES, PERCEPTIONS LEVEL OF KNOWLEDGE
• VOLUNTEERISM CHARITABLE GIVING
• GENERAL CFC ISSUES
• CFC CHARITABLE GIVING SEPTEMBER 11TH

35

• METHODOLOGY
• DONOR GROUP
• NON-DONOR GROUP
• OTHER CRITERIA - CIVILIAN, MILITARY, POSTAL
  REPRESENTATION

36
KEY FINDINGS GENERAL
37
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.
38

• Respondents reported that they witnessed loud
  and clear announcements that the campaign was
  underway.
• Special events related to the campaign were also
  mentioned.

39
Pamela B. Haberstroh

• 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.

40
CFC VOLUNTEERS -
Being selected to work on the CFC is often seen
as a booby prize. While some departments
solicit volunteers others resort to those who
cannot defend themselves (e.g. those out sick or
new hires).
41

• 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.

42

• Furthermore, there was particular sensitivity to
  agency goals for CFC participation
• It puts pressure on for no particular reason.
  The agency doesnt 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.

43

• 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.

44

• 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?

45

• Further, participants were not mollified to learn
  that participating charities are screened and
  approved by federal employees.
• Which federal employees?
• What criteria are used?

46

• CONTRIBUTORS GUIDES -
• Several participants indicated that they see the
  contributors guides short-lived usefulness as a
  source of waste.
• All that paper..save some trees.
• Thats where some of our donations go.

47

• 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.

48

• 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.

49

• 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.

50
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.
51

• 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

52

• 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

53

• 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.

54
With a resounding no, the universal response
was that giving to charities using credit cards
was a BAD idea.
55

• 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.

56
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.
57
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.

58

• Why Non-Donors Dont Give
• Background
• Non CFC donors do support charity
• Supportive of the needs arising from September
  11th
• Want more than just writing a check.

59

• Non-donors provided the following as the reasons
  that they dont give through the CFC
• Theyre not trusting of the process.
• They see the CFC as a middle-man.
• Gifts outside of the CFC provide greater
  personal satisfaction.

60

• 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.

61
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.
62

• The only factors cited by non-donors as important
  concerning their CFC donations were
• Knowing how donations are handled
• Personal employment status

63

• 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

64

• 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).

65
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.
66
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.

67
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.
68

• 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.

69

• 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

70

• 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

71

• 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.

72

• 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.

73

• 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.

74

• 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.

75

• Special attention also needs to be given to
• Special events geared toward the CFC
• Explaining how daycare facilities at federal
  worksites qualify for participation.

76

• 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.

77

• 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.

78

• 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 films message.

79
CFC DONOR RESEARCH AT THE LOCAL LEVEL
80

• 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.

81

• 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.

82

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

83

• 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.

84

• REASONS DONORS REPORTED THAT THEY DIDNT GIVE
• Feeling pressured to contribute
• Were here to work, not to give what little we
  have to a sanctioned organization
• avoiding the middle person

85

• 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

86

• 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.

87
DONOR RESEARCH -
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE..