Understanding Donor Motivations and Barriers for the Combined Federal Campaign

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 (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

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 – “It’s a civilian thing.” • “It’s the government form of United Way.”

12. 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.

13. 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.

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 (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

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. Donorsand Non-Donorsreacted 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 foreducation.

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 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.”

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. 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.”

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.”