out_3

ASSESSING BRAND MANAGEMENT:

A REPLICATION OF UNITED WAY OF AMERICA’S NATIONAL SURVEY

by

Barbara S. Rogers

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Philosophy

Capella University

May, 2007

UMI Number: 3263157

32631572007

Copyright 2007 byRogers, Barbara S.

UMI MicroformCopyright

All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road

P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346

All rights reserved.

by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.

© Barbara Rogers, 2007

ASSESSING BRAND MANAGEMENT:

A REPLICATION OF UNITED WAY OF AMERICA'S NATIONAL SURVEY

by

Barbara S. Rogers

has been approved

May 2007

APPROVED:

CLIFF BUTLER, Ph.D., Faculty Mentor and Chair

R.D. O'CONNOR, Ph.D., Committee Member

YVONNE KOCHANOWSKI, DPA, Committee Member

SUSAN WAJERT, Ph.D., Committee Member

MICHAEL DENNING, Committee Member

ACCEPTED AND SIGNED:

__________________________________________ CLIFF BUTLER, Ph.D. __________________________________________ Kurt Linberg, Ph.D. Dean, School of Business & Technology

Abstract

Brand management is an important element in today’s business setting. Organizations must be

able to ascertain just how much their brand is worth by assessing the brand’s performance to see

if it is realizing its full potential. In the past decade, United Way of America (UWA) has

witnessed the erosion of its brand, and the organization has begun a full-scale effort to strengthen

its brand image particularly in the area of differentiation. Local United Ways have been called

upon to assist with this repositioning as well. This study examined United Way of America’s

efforts to value its decades-old brand and what it has done to reposition itself in the philanthropic

marketplace. UWA has utilized different research methods to measure its brand’s equity

including Young and Rubicam’s Brand Asset Valuator, research conducted by Interbrand, and an

annual survey tool to measure the public’s perception of United Way. This study replicated the

national survey performed by UWA at United Way of Putnam County in order to determine the

study’s applicability at the local level.

iii

Table of Contents

Table of Contents iii

List of Tables v

List of Figures vi

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………….…1

Introduction to the Problem………………………………………………………..1

Background of the Study…………………………………………………………..3

United Way of America…………..……………………………………………...4

United Way of Putnam County……………………….…………………..….…12

Statement of the Problem…………………………………………………………14

Purpose of the Study……………………………………………………………...15

Rationale…………………………………………………………………….…....16

Research Questions…………………………………………………………….…16

Significance of the Study…………………………………………………………16

Assumptions and Limitations……………………………………………….…....16

Nature of the Study……………………………………………………………….17

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW…………………………………………………18

Branding……………………………………………………………………..….18

Brand Equity………………………………………………………………….....22

Brand Valuation…………………………………………………..……………..24

Young and Rubicam’s Brand Asset Valuator………………………………..….26

iv

Differentiation…………………………………………………...……….……....28

Relevance……………………………………………………………….………...30

Esteem………………………………………………………………….....……...31

Knowledge…………………………………………………………….……….…31

Brand Strength and Brand Stature……………………………………….…...….32

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY……………………………………………………..…....34

Survey Timeline……………………………………………………………..…......42

CHAPTER 4: DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS…………………………… …....44

CHAPTER 5: RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS……...… ......78

REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………….. ….....89

Appendix A United Way of America National Survey…………………………… …...…93

Appendix B United Way of America National Survey Results……………………… ....114

Appendix C United Way of Putnam County Web Survey……………………….. ……..128

Appendix D United Way of Putnam County Web Survey Results………………….... ...148

Appendix E Instructions for Participation and Consent to Participate…………… ….….164

Appendix F Putnam County Sentinel Advertisements Inviting Survey Participation… ...165

Appendix G E-Mail Inviting Survey Participation……………………………………. ...166

v

List of Tables

Table 1: Demographic Makeup of Putnam County…………………………..………....38

Table 2: Gender………………………………………………………………………….44

Table 3: Age……………………………………………………………………………..45

Table 4: Education…………………………………………………………………….…45

Table 5: Employment……………………………………………………………………46

Table 6: Labor Union Affiliations……………………………………………………….46

Table 7: Marital Status…………………………………………………………………..47

Table 8: Under Five Years of Age in Households………………………………………47

Table 9: Rent/Own Residence………………………………………………….………..48

Table 10: Home E-Mail Access…………………………………………………………48

Table 11: Income………………………………………………………………………...49

Table 12: Ethnicity……………………………………………………………………....49

Table 13: Confidence in Charities in General…………………………………………...50

Table 14: Confidence in Specific Charities……………………………………………...51

Table 15: Giving to Charitable Organizations……………………………………….….52

Table 16: Crosstabulations: United Way is an Organization that Lets Me Know

What is Being Accomplished with My Contribution and Income…………....70

Table 17: Crosstabulations: United Way is an Organization that Gets Visible Results

and Education…………………………………………………………….…...73

Table 18: Crosstabluations: United Way is an Organization that Enables Me to

Make the Greatest Difference My Community and Age………………………..75

vi

List of Figures

Figure 1: Growth of Non-Profits………………………………………………………..….2

Figure 2: Philanthropic Giving 5-Year Periods……………………………………...…..…2

Figure 3: Top of Mind Awareness Trends.……………………………………..………....12

Figure 4: Effectiveness of United Way as a Leader in Community Impact……………....12

Figure 5: Trust in Charities………………………………………………………………..54

Figure 6: Awareness of United Way Programs…………………………………………...55

Figure 7: Importance of United Way Brand Promises……………………………………58

Figure 8: Agreement with United Way Brand Promises………………………………….59

Figure 9: Agreement with Key Attributes of United Way………………………………..61

Figure 10: Agreement with Key Attributes of Red Cross………………………………...62

Figure 11: Agreement with Key Attributes of Salvation Army…………………………..63

Figure 12: Likelihood of Giving to United Way in the Future…………………………...64

Figure 13: Advertising Awareness………………………………………………………..65

Figure 14: United Way Advertising Awareness in Specific Media………………………66

Figure 15: Community Issues Associated with United Way……………………………..68

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

Introduction to the Problem

The United Way brand evokes a strong message to many Americans. It is an institution

that has been in the forefront of human service work for decades, and nearly every community in

America has a United Way. United Ways or community chests were originally formed to scale

back massive fundraising efforts that were taking place in communities across the United States

by replacing small individual non-profit efforts at fundraising and allowing the United Ways to

take on this task. Money raised through the United Way campaigns were allocated to agencies

such as Salvation Army, American Red Cross, and other major charities that no longer had to

worry about how they would be funded within their own communities. Even with all of its good

work, the United Way had to ask itself if it remained relevant and if its brand image really

conveyed what it should. “While Americans are making more charitable contributions, United

Way’s share of the philanthropic market is getting smaller” (United Way Brand Guide, 2001,

p.1), and this issue forced United Ways to ask its agencies to begin some fundraising efforts on

their own. Agencies were now asking for United Way funding as well as conducting fundraising

efforts for themselves, which increased competition for the donors’ dollars. This has caused

many donors to question United Way’s relevance in the marketplace since other non-profits were

conducting fundraising appeals as well.

Many factors contribute to the decline in giving to United Way including the enormous

growth of the non-profit sector. Over the last decade, non-profits have grown from 575,690

organizations in 1993 to 964,418 organizations in 2003 causing United Way more concern over

its share of the philanthropic market (United Way of America, 2004, p. 6). Giving from 1993 to

Assessing Brand Management

2

1997 totaled $773.63 billion, and during the five-year period of 1998 to 2002, giving totaled

$1,135.13 billion dollars (United Way of America, 2003, p. 3).

0100,000200,000300,000400,000500,000600,000700,000800,000900,000

1,000,000

1993 2003

Non-Profits

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

Billions

1993 to 1997 1998 to 2002

Giving

Figure 1. Growth of non-profits from 1993 to 2003

Figure 2. Philanthropic giving 5-year periods from 1993 to 2002


3

United Way of America has taken steps to address its eroding brand including periodic

brand valuation conducted through Young and Rubicam’s Brand Asset Valuator, research

conducted by Interbrand, and an annual survey tool that measures the public’s perception of the

United Way. The nearly 1,400 local United Way chapters have recently been asked to make

changes to the way they function as well to help shore up the organization’s image in the

marketplace. In an effort to determine the applicability of the annual survey tool at the local level

and to determine if local United Ways face the same threats, this study replicated the national

survey performed by UWA at United Way of Putnam County Ohio.

Background of the Study

When people think of the United Way, they generally think of it as a fundraising

agency, one they normally see in their workplace collecting funds for a number of social causes.

Others see it as a distributor of funds. The money raised through annual workplace campaigns is

given to various partner agencies in the community to help address critical human service needs.

The goal of the United Way is to be seen as a community impact leader, change agent, and

solutions provider. “This role can raise a United Way organization to a more proactive leadership

position in the community, gaining greater visibility among donors in every market. With a

strategy that focuses on the donor, United Ways make donors feel they are doing more for their

community and feel great about giving to United Way. The result, the brand new United Way”

(United Way Brand Guide, 2001, p.1).

Over the past decade, Young and Rubicam, a leading marketing firm specializing in

brand management, has conducted research on the United Way’s brand equity. Equity is a “set of

assets such as name, awareness, loyal customers, perceived quality, and associations that are


4

linked to the brand and that either add or subtract value from the product or services being

offered” (United Way Brand Guide, 2001, p.6). Their research indicated the United Way brand

“was showing all the signs of an eroding brand” (United Way Brand Guide, 2001, p.7). Young

and Rubicam’s research was substantiated by studies conducted by Interbrand and United Way’s

national annual survey.

These studies brought deep concern from UWA management and staff. Losing brand

equity in the face of increasing competition could deal the United Way a blow it may not be able

to recover from. Van Auken described brand equity as creating a “relationship and a strong bond

that grows over time. It is often so strong that it compensates for performance flaws…building

brand equity is like building a close friendship. It requires a consistent relationship over time,

trust, and an emotional connection” (2001, p. 2).

Brand equity determines the “amount of additional income expected from a brand

product over and above what might be expected from an identical, unbranded product; the

tangible value associated with a product that can not be accounted for by price or features; and

the overall perceptions of quality and image attributed to a product, independent of its physical

features” (Understanding, p. 1).

United Way of America

The Mission of the United Way is “to improve people's lives by mobilizing the caring

power of communities” (United Way Web Site, 2002). United Way is a national movement that

is community based and seeks to “activate community resources to make the greatest possible

human impact. The United Way system includes approximately 1,400 community-based United


5

Way organizations. Each is independent, separately incorporated and governed by local

volunteers” (United Way Web Site, 2002).

United Way chapters have emerged as community impact leaders that address social

issues on the local level and “mobilize resources beyond dollars that are pledged through their

fund-raising efforts. Each chapter partners with many local entities including schools,

government policy makers, businesses, organized labor, financial institutions, voluntary and

neighborhood associations, community development corporations and the faith community”

(United Way Web Site, 2002). Some common areas of focus among United Ways include:

“helping children and youth succeed, strengthening and supporting families, promoting self-

sufficiency, building vital and safe neighborhoods and supporting vulnerable and aging

populations” (United Way Web Site, 2002).

The United Way system conducted successful campaigns during 2000 and 2001 as they

raised “$3.91 billion. United Ways also leveraged almost $1 billion in additional resources--for a

total of $4.7 billion--to build stronger communities” (United Way Web Site, 2002). The United

Way’s ability to employ large numbers of volunteers in its campaign efforts has allowed the

system to keep administrative costs low, averaging about 13 percent of funds raised, which is

well within the Better Business Bureau recommendations of up to 35% (Hoover.com, 2006).

Each of the 1,400 United Way chapters is an autonomous, independently governed

organization. Local United Ways choose their own board of trustees and standing committees.

They formulate their own individual missions and strategic goals, set up the structure of their

organization, and hire who they want to direct the operation. They are responsible for identifying


6

areas of concern within their own communities and partnering with agencies that can help

alleviate these concerns. All fundraising is done on a local level through the use of volunteers.

Through memberships, local United Ways are aided by the United Way of America

(UWA), which is a “national leadership organization for the United Way movement. UWA leads

the movement through public relations, national brand advertising, the NFL partnership and the

management of relationships with national corporate and philanthropic partners and the federal

government” (United Way Web Site, 2002). UWA provides support services to local entities

including training programs, consultation sessions, mediation, conferencing, research, and

assessment. Local United Ways are also members of individual state organizations.

For decades, United Ways across the country experienced positive donor relationships

within their communities. Campaigns grew without much concern for failure. However, recent

years have seen a change in the philanthropic landscape, which greatly impacted United Ways.

These changes include:

1. Decline in market share

2. Growth in 501(c)(3)s

3. Change in corporate landscape including employment patterns and inclusion of other workplace fundraisers

4. Economic slump

5. Emergence of the Internet

6. Low brand differentiation

7. Impersonal and distant donor relationships


7

These factors, coupled with turmoil inside the UWA which included the questioning of

the use of 9-11 donations, abuse of power by the national United Way director, and reported

misconduct at the National Capital United Way, made it imperative the UWA take the lead in

movement towards brand analysis and strong brand management within the United Way system.

They had to work to “revitalize” their brand image by “repositioning it for new

markets…through redevelopment and improvements” (Foxall, Goldsmith, and Brown, 1998,

p. 13). The choice of a brand strategy was made in an effort to

1. Promote increased awareness of United Way’s core purpose and mission

2. Guide cohesive action across the United Way system, delivering a consistent

experience to donors

3. Drive accelerated growth among target donors 4. Ensure long-term vitality, preference and differentiation

In today’s world of philanthropic competition, donors are given a myriad of choices of

where to place their money. Donors are savvy and want to get the biggest bang for their buck

when donating, and they want the charity of their choice to be responsible stewards of their

money. Donors are being heavily courted by the old tried and true charities such as the YMCA,

American Red Cross, American Cancer Society, and the United Way. They are also being

bombarded by hundreds of requests each year by new startups. Requests are made for aid in the

areas of the arts, education, social services, religion, and sports. A strong brand image can help

people make the decision of where to donate their hard earned money. Peppers and Rogers

stated, “Clinging to the safety of a well-known brand is one way a consumer can deal with the

storm of information and choice that now surrounds us all” (1999, p. 328).


8

According to Cynthia Round, Executive Vice President of Brand Management at UWA,

“Strong brands have the power to lift earnings” (Round, 2003). Betty Beene, past President of

the UWA, stated, “Brand commitment can enable a United Way to focus on meeting the

expectations of its best and most demanding donor and, in the process, delight everyone else.

The result is a stronger reputation and brand” (United Way Brand Guide, 2001, p. 2).

Many companies do not realize the possible worth a brand can have to their company. It

is important they determine the brand valuation. “In recent years, corporate brands have become

enormously valuable assets—companies with strong corporate brands can have market values

that are more than twice their book values” (Hatch and Schultz, 2001, p. 2).

The UWA recently contracted with Interbrand, a brand consultancy company, to

investigate the value of its brand. Interbrand studies companies, their brands, and their brand-

worth. Their company is responsible for identifying the top 100 global brands, which is

announced annually in Business Week. United Way’s brand was valued at $34.7 billion, and is in

the top ten of the world’s most recognizable brands. It appears behind Coke and Microsoft, but

ahead of the Disney Company (Round, 2003).

Interbrand estimates 20% of the United Way’s brand value is yet to be unleashed, and

the company states 67% of United Way’s tangible earnings can be attributed to its brand. Five

differentiating drivers of donor demand were identified in Interbrand’s study: local impact, ease

of transaction, image and heritage, transparency, and inertia (Round, 2003).

The United Way’s brand is hugely recognizable in the global marketplace. It was not

necessary for the organization to totally reinvent the brand image. However, it was necessary to


9

take a good, hard look at consumers’ perceptions and to reposition the brand in order to make it

stronger.

The UWA’s objectives in repositioning its brand are to

1. Disrupt current perceptions of United Way as a fundraiser and fund distributor

2. Position United Way as the leading community organization focused on what

matters—results

3. Guide cohesive action by delivering a consistent message and experience

4. Energize and inspire people to make a difference in their community (Round, 2003).

The target audience in this repositioning is the active community investor who would:

1. Value a lasting contribution to society 2. Have an interest in politics

3. Believe they can make a difference

4. Be well-informed and interested in current events

5. Have the means to give $500 and up (Round, 2003).

National research showed the demographics of this target audience to be 18% of the

population (35 million Americans), between the ages of 35 and 54 (52%), married (67%), have

children (58%), college educated (64%), own their own homes (81%), and have an average

household income of $86,800 (Round, 2003).

“Young and Rubicam, a major global advertising agency, conducts brand equity

research among hundreds of brands every year using their Brand Asset Valuator. They examine

brands across four attributes: knowledge, esteem, relevance, and differentiation” (United Way


10

Brand Guide, 2001, p.7). In several evaluations done during the past decade, this company

analyzed United Way’s brand across these attributes.

The Brand Asset Valuator used by Young and Rubicam “is a leading global brand

model conducted in 32 countries. More than 100,000 people are surveyed on over 13,000 brands.

The Y and R model is based on 56 measures per brand” (United Way of America, 2002, p. 2).

These 56 measures are grouped into four key areas:

1. Knowledge – How well is the brand known? 2. Esteem – How highly respected is the brand?

3. Relevance – How much is the brand an actual part of peoples’ lives?

4. Differentiation – How unique is the brand in the consumer’s mind? (United Way of

America, 2002, p. 2)

Differentiation and relevance are part of a brand’s strength, and esteem and knowledge

combine to make up the brand’s stature (United Way of America, 2002, p.2).

In initial studies done in 1993, the firm found the brand was strong in knowledge, but

lacking in “the areas of esteem, differentiation, and relevance” (United Way Brand Guide, 2001,

p.7). Studies in 1997 and 1999 showed the brand had made great strides in the areas of esteem

and relevance, but was clearly behind in the area of differentiation. “While United Way has been

able to increase differentiation among donors in recent years, it still has a way to go in terms of

increasing differentiation among the general public” (United Way Brand Guide, 2001, p.7).

The importance of differentiation is shown in the United Way’s Brand Guide:

“Differentiation is the engine of the brand train. It leads the way” (2000, p.7). This attribute is


11

what sets the brand apart from so many others out there. It is what makes people sit up and take

notice.

“There are three types of brand differences: brand performance associations, brand

imagery associations, and consumer insight associations” (Keller, Sternthal, Tybout, 2002, p. 5)

and those differences are defined as:

1. Brand performance – the way a product or service attempts to meet a customers’

needs 2. Brand imagery- who uses the brand and under what circumstances

3. Consumer insight- used when performance and imagery do not differ much. Brand

has insight into a consumer’s problems or goals (Keller, Sternthal, Tybout, 2002, p.6).

Results from United Way of America’s national public opinion poll showed “public trust

in charities in general has improved, but United Way has not experienced significant

improvements in its public trust numbers” (United Way of America Research, 2004, p. 1). The

study indicates in 2004 charities were thought to be doing a good job by 81% of the population.

United Way’s confidence rating was at 78%, Red Cross at 88%, and Salvation Army 89%. In

regards to charities being trusted to do what they say they will do with contributions, 51% stated,

in general, they feel charities can be trusted on this issue. Outcomes for other charities included:

United Way, 75%; Red Cross, 88%, and Salvation Army, 91% (United Way of America

Research, 2004, p. 9).

Other results also included:

1. UWA top of mind awareness has declined

2. UWA effectiveness as a leader in community impact issues has weakened


12

3. Decreased public support for UWA’s key messages (United Way of America

Research, 2004, p. 1).

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

United WayChurchesRed CrossSalvation Army

0

10

20

30

40

50

VeryEffective

SomewhatEffective

Neither

200220032004

United Way of Putnam County

The United Way of Putnam County (UWPC) was organized in 1955. Its mission and

vision are very similar to that of the UWA: To bring together the people and resources of

Figure 4. Effectiveness of United Way as a leader in community impact

Figure 3. Top of mind awareness trends for various non-profits


13

Putnam County to help build a healthy, happy, and strong community of which we can all be

proud.

The UWPC covers an area in Northwest Ohio of 34,726 people. The population of the

county is not very ethnically diverse. Whites account for 96.3%, 4% are of Hispanic or Latino

descent, and only .2% are African-Americans. About 12.9% have a bachelor’s degree or higher.

The median household income in Putnam County is about $46,400. The UWA targeted age range

in Putnam County accounts for nearly 30% of the population (US Census Bureau, 2005, p. 1).

The UWA embarked upon an extensive advertising campaign to reposition its brand

message. Larger metro United Ways did the same; however, smaller United Ways like UWPC

are unable to expend much in the way of advertising dollars outside of their annual campaigns

towards that end. Overhead at the local United Ways is kept very low, and advertising is usually

done minimally. National advertising as well as advertising done in large metropolitan United

Ways will aid smaller chapters.

The strength of local United Ways lies within their ability to market one-on-one

throughout their area. Board members and other volunteers meet face to face with business and

community leaders to “sell” the United Way story and garner their support through pledged

contributions. It is through these discussions, transparent operations, and effective messages

UWPC will accomplish its brand strategy. “When United Way organizations align all three—

promises, performance, and presentation—within their individual organizations, they will

succeed in strengthening their local brand and help build a national brand. Consistency builds

trust and strengthens efforts to increase differentiation” (United Way Brand Guide, 2001, p.2).


14

The UWA chose as its target audience the “committed donor” who contributes $500 or

more annually. This donor is considered a Leadership Donor at UWPC. In the 2002 campaign,

there were 166 Leadership givers totaling $105,146 in a campaign of $520,000. This averages

about $633 per contribution in that particular category. The typical donor in Putnam County is

blue collar and gives between $100 to $200 each year. The industrial division is the largest

giving segment within UWPC’s campaign making up about a half of the actual dollars raised.

Those donors able to give at higher amounts rarely do so and should come from the professional,

health care, and public service divisions.

One concern of the UWPC was its ability to manage the branding messages of the

UWA. “The key to a strong brand is the consistency in its use and communication across an

organization” (United Way Brand Guide, 2001, p.2.1). It was imperative for the organization to

send out messages consistent with UWA’s. These messages had to be clear and concise in order

to be understood by all stakeholders. Biolos stated, “Consumers respond to simplicity” and

branding efforts must be kept focused and uncomplicated in order to succeed (1997, p. 3).

Statement of the Problem

The goals of the branding effort of the UWA are clear cut and attainable on the national

level and with the larger metro United Ways. Smaller United Ways such as the United Way of

Putnam County (UWPC), however, do not have the funds, staff, or other resources to aid in the

repositioning of the UWA’s branding strategy. The UWPC was not able to conduct extensive

research needed to supplement the findings of the Young and Rubicam studies or the annual

national study. The national United Way does offer independent United Ways the opportunity to

piggyback on its annual survey. The survey can be conducted at the local level for a cost of


15

$13,500—an amount UWPC is unable to afford. While these studies offer a great deal of insight

into brand equity and branding strategies, they do not tell the entire story for smaller United

Ways.

Research had to be done on the local level in order to get a complete picture of the

brand’s image within Putnam County. “Any brand management initiative, any marketing

initiative, and indeed any business or organizational initiative must start with a solid

understanding of the customer. Indeed, organizations exist for one purpose—to meet human

needs. Thriving organizations do that exceedingly well. Venerated organizations have managed

to meet evolving needs over a long period of time” (Van Auken, 2001, p. 3).

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of replicating UWA’s national annual survey was to determine if its

research findings were relevant to United Way of Putnam County. Were the findings done on the

national scale actually transferable to small town America? The organization is better equipped

to develop and implement sound marketing strategies for the county. According to Kristin

Thomsen, Manager of Market Research at United Way of America, “We use the public opinion

poll results to define our brand in the public’s eye. We need to know how our brand is perceived

compared to our competitors, and what it means to the public and to the donor. We test brand

attributes, brand promises, and several brand metrics (such as trust, favorability, satisfaction,

etc.) which give us an idea of how UW is doing in terms of differentiating itself from others,

reaching donors with its advertising and campaign, and relationship building” (personal

communication, February 7, 2005).


16

Rationale

The study replicated at the local level what had been done on the national stage. There

are many small United Ways under the national umbrella--each with its own distinctive place in

the philanthropic market. The study allowed a small United Way the opportunity to see if its data

is comparable to that of the national survey. The research allowed United Way of Putnam

County an opportunity to measure its data against the national data, and it created a

knowledgebase for Putnam County that can be used as a benchmark in coming years.

Research Question

The question addressed in this study was: Do the results of the survey being replicated

by United Way of Putnam County mirror the findings of United Way of America’s national

survey?

Significance of the Study

This study determined if survey findings by the Putnam County United Way mirrored

those on the national level. It examined whether or not the survey’s national findings could be

generalized across the board and used in rural areas of the country and areas economically and

demographically different than the U.S. in general. The research enabled UWPC to select its

target audience and develop strategic marketing and communication efforts.

Assumptions and Limitations

For this study, the following assumptions were made:

1. The study sample were representative of Putnam County 2. Answers provided were truthful and to the best of participants’ knowledge

3. Representatives of donor and non-donor groups participated in the study


17

Limitations of the study included: 1. Participation was constrained by the delivery method of the survey. Only

individuals who had access to the Internet were able to respond to the survey

2. Those who felt compelled to respond to the survey may have felt a close connection

to UWPC and its mission or those who felt dissatisfied with UWPC may have felt compelled to fill out the survey

3. Data was unique only to Putnam County

4. The replicated study was not being conducted during the same time frame as the

national study

5. There was no way to limit how many times someone took the survey

Nature of the Study

The research that was replicated was a quantitative study consisting of a 65-question

survey. The survey was done on an annual basis by the United Way of America and was

conducted through telephone interviews with 1,500 adults nationwide. Permission was granted

by UWA for the study to be replicated by United Way of Putnam County.

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

Consumers are bombarded with thousands of marketing messages every day from

businesses and organizations vying for their hard-earned dollar. The primary task of marketers is

to get their message to stand out amidst all of this clutter and to get consumers to act upon the

message by purchasing the product or service offered. The next step in this process is to build a

relationship with the customer by gaining his loyalty and getting him to come back again and

again. Many marketers get their messages out through brand building by creating a brand

customers understand and appreciate. Peppers and Rogers (1999) stated, “Clinging to the safety

of a well-known brand is one way a consumer can deal with the storm of information and choice

that now surrounds us all” (p. 328). Marketers build strong brands by using key message points,

logos, colors, and other symbols to sell their brands to customers.

The literature review outlines branding, brand equity, brand valuation, and Young and

Rubicam’s Brand Asset Valuator.

Branding

The branding process has been addressed in marketing literature by Aaker (1991),

Kotler and Armstrong (1997), Keller (1998), Peppers and Rogers (1999), Brand Guide of the

United Way of America (2001), Blumenthal (2001), McFarland (2002), and Dunn.

Aaker (1991) wrote:

A brand is a distinguishing name and/or symbol (such as a logo, trademark, or package design) intended to identify the goods or services of either one seller or a group of sellers, and to differentiate those goods or services from those of competitors. A brand thus signals to the customer the source of the product, and protects both the customer and the producer from competitors who would attempt to provide products that appear to be identical. (p. 7)


19

Kotler and Armstrong (1997) defined a brand as a “name, term, sign, symbol, or design,

or a combination of these that identifies the maker or seller of a product. It is the seller’s promise

to deliver consistently a specific set of features, benefits, and services to buyers. Consumers view

a brand as an important part of a product, and branding can add value to a product” (p. 247).

Keller wrote, “Although manufacturing processes and factory designs often can be

duplicated, strongly held beliefs and attitudes established in the minds of consumers often can

not be easily reproduced” (Keller, 1998, xvii).

Peppers and Rogers stated:

Throughout the Industrial Age, companies have focused more and more on differentiating themselves from their competition. One important element of this effort has been “branding.” Brands became important when mass marketing became the dominant form of competition among consumer businesses…The brand symbolizes a company’s promise to deliver a good product to customers who have no personal relationship with the people who work at the company. (1999, p. 329)

According to the Brand Guide of the United Way of America, “Although every brand is

a product or service, not every product or service is a brand. A brand is the relationship between

the product or service and the user. A product or service does not become a brand until it has

earned a significant place in the lives of its users. Understanding the brand context of the user’s

life facilitates defining the essence of the brand—and leveraging the connection a brand has with

its users” (2001, p. 1.1).

Blumenthal (2001) stated, “Branding is about creating loyalty, motivation, and even

missionary zeal among customers and employees alike” (p. 2); McFarland (2002) put forth the

idea a “brand should serve as a trustworthy guide to help consumers make choices” (p. 3); and


20

Dunn wrote, “Functionally, the brand acts as a sort of shorthand that consumers use to decide

between competing products” (p. 1).

Other sources focused on branding included: Arnold (1992), Gobe (2001), Van Auken

(2001), Hatch and Schultz (2001), Athens, Understanding Brand Equity, and Mercer

Management Consulting (2002).

According to Arnold (1992), customers turn to brands because,

1. Customers never understand a product as well as the company selling it.

2. Customers will perceive a product in their own terms.

3. Customer perception will focus on benefits, which are often intangible.

4. Customer perception is not always at the conscious level (p. 6-8).

Branding is primarily an emotional experience and many times it goes beyond what the

product feels like, looks like, or even actually does. A strong brand can produce real emotions in

consumers as to how they feel about themselves when they are associated with the product. The

use of some brands can elicit good feelings, childhood memories, or even feelings of self-worth.

Gobe (2001) wrote:

Emotional Branding provides the means and methodology for connecting products to the consumer in an emotionally profound way. It focuses on the most compelling aspect of the human character: the desire to transcend material satisfaction, and experience emotional fulfillment. A brand is uniquely situated to achieve this because it can tap into the aspirational drives which underlie human motivation. (p. xv)

Van Auken (2001) echoed Gobe as he stated, “Emotional connection is what every

brand should ultimately strive for. If your brand can achieve emotional connection, it can gain

customer loyalty. The customer first must know your brand and then he or she must like your

brand. Finally, the consumer must trust your brand and feel an emotional connection to it”


21

(p. 3). Van Auken (2001) further stated people become emotionally connected for many reasons

including:

1. The brand stands for something important to them.

2. The brand is intense and vibrant. It connects with people on multiple levels across

several senses.

3. The brand is unique.

4. The brand is admirable.

5. The brand consistently interacts with them. It never disappoints them.

6. The brand makes them feel good (Van Auken, 2001, p. 5).

A great deal of time and money have been spent on developing brands, and today

companies realize one of the most priceless resources an organization can have is its brand.

“Although manufacturing processes and factory designs often can be duplicated, strongly held

beliefs and attitudes established in the minds of consumers often can not be easily reproduced”

(Keller, 1998, xvii).

The customer’s relationship with the brand makes it a vital part of the company, and

until recently, there was no real financial value placed on this branding relationship. “In recent

years, corporate brands have become enormously valuable assets—companies with strong

corporate brands can have market values that are more than twice their book values” (Hatch and

Schultz, 2001, p. 4).

Athens wrote:

When brands are treated as an asset, companies begin to see the power of branding, including what it can do for them. Branding goes beyond the execution


22

of advertising and logos, touching practically every area of an organization—from internal employee communications and operational facilities to dealerships, the Web, as well as products and services that are being sold. Branding is about how your business motivates a consumer to make a purchase. (p. 1)

In the article “Understanding Brand Equity,” it stated, “Brand names are company

assets that must be invested in, protected, and nurtured to maximize their long-term value in your

company. Brands have many of the same implications as capital assets (like equipment and plant

purchases) on a company’s bottom line, including the ability to be bought and sold and the

ability to provide strategic advantages” (p. 2). A strong brand is every bit as important as the

more tangible assets such as physical facilities and inventories, and its affect on future earnings

may outweigh other assets.

With the prevalence of brands in the marketplace comes the difficult task of managing

them. Marketers must fully understand their brand and its connection to consumers, be able to

measure its equity, and develop strategy to support their brand’s growth in the marketplace.

Mercer Management Consulting (2002) reported:

Brand management has advanced since the days when brands were tag lines managed by marketing executives and built by spending money on general advertising. Senior executives today understand that brands are intangible assets that can be leveraged to build or protect shareholder value. But executives are often at a loss to understand their brands’ equity (the attributes of a brand that influence behavior). (p. 2)

Brand Equity

Brand equity can be difficult to determine and measure. Companies must understand

consumers’ connections to the brand and be able to gauge its importance. First, a clear

understanding of brand equity must be gained. Brand equity is defined in marketing literature by

Aaker (1991), Kotler and Armstrong (1997), Boone and Kurtz (1999), Marconi (2000), Van


23

Auken (2001), Ricci and Volkmann (2003), Understanding Brand Equity, and Athens.

Aaker (1991) stated simply, “Brand equity is a set of brand assets and liabilities linked to a

brand, its name and symbol, that add to or subtract from the value provided by a product or

service to a firm and/or to that firm’s customers” (p. 16).

Kotler and Armstrong (1997) wrote, “Brands vary in the amount of power and value

that they have in the marketplace. A powerful brand has high brand equity. Brands have higher

brand equity to the extent that they have higher brand loyalty, name awareness, perceived

quality, strong brand associations, and other assets such as patents, trademarks, and channel

relationships” (p. 247).

Boone and Kurtz (1999) defined brand equity as “the added value that a certain brand

name gives to a product in the marketplace. Brands with high equity often confer financial

advantages on a firm, because they often command comparatively large market shares, and

because consumers may give little attention to differences in price. Studies have also linked

brand equity to high profits and stock returns” (p. 402).

Marconi (2000) wrote, “Brand equity is the value, or the perception of value, in the

brand name. Establishing that value begins with creating awareness” (p. 39), and Van Auken

(2001) described brand equity as creating a “relationship and a strong bond that grows over time.

It is often so strong that it compensates for performance flaws…building brand equity is like

building a close friendship. It requires a consistent relationship over time, trust, and an emotional

connection” (p. 2).

Brand equity has enabled companies to assign a financial value on “the conceptual

relationship between brands and customers” (Ricci and Volkmann, 2003, p. 23). It determines


24

the “amount of additional income expected from a brand product over and above what might be

expected from an identical, unbranded product; the tangible value associated with a product that

can not be accounted for by price or features; and the overall perceptions of quality and image

attributed to a product, independent of its physical features” (Understanding, p. 1).

Companies that understand their customers and their relationship to its brand are

building strong brand equity and are able to add “value to your company’s products and services.

This added value can be used to your company’s advantage to charge price premiums, lower

marketing costs and offer greater opportunities for customer purchase” (Understanding, p. 1).

However, a brand not managed properly can negatively impact the marketplace having

disastrous consequences for the company.

Companies must be vigilant in their efforts to track their brands in the marketplace.

With millions of dollars spent on brand building, marketers must be able to assess how well their

brands fair alongside other offerings, and tracking brand equity will allow companies the

opportunity to assess their advertising and promotional programs. Athens wrote, “Brands also

need to be constantly measured and monitored. In the past, branding has been a somewhat

abstract concept that focused primarily on the communications aspects of advertising, images,

personalities, and logos” (Athens, p. 3). The authors of “Understanding Brand Equity” concurred

when they wrote, “Track equity over time and measure effectiveness of advertising and

marketing campaigns to build brand image” (Understanding, p. 4).

Brand Valuation

Brand equity can be tracked through brand valuation. This process helps marketers

concentrate resources where they will have the most impact. Aaker (1991) wrote, “Developing


25

approaches to placing a value on a brand is important for several reasons. First, as a practical

matter, since brands are bought and sold, a value must be assessed by both buyers and

sellers…Second, investments in brands in order to enhance brand equity need to be justified, as

there always are competing funds…Third, the valuation question provides additional insight into

the brand-equity concept” (p. 22).

Arnold (1992), explained the importance of brand valuation when he wrote:

Although brand valuation began as a balance sheet exercise, it soon became clear that the information generated in the process of valuation was of enormous value to both marketing and general management…The very nature of brand valuation, in that it needs to assess brand profits and the prospect of future earnings, means that markets, positioning, trends, market share, and all other relevant factors are inevitably taken into consideration. (p. 217)

Five approaches to “assessing the value of brand equity” were proposed by Aaker

(1991):

1. Price premium supported by the name

2. Name impact on customer preference

3. Brand’s replacement value

4. Stock price of the company

5. Earning power of the brand (p. 22).

Clancy (2002) suggested companies take a more scientific approach to determining

what is important in evaluating brands when he wrote, “Conduct a brand audit to determine

what’s working and what’s not. Build on your strengths and avoid making testosterone-driven,

from the gut decisions that can cause real damage” (p. 5).

In determining brand value, Sherrington (2003) stated plainly, “The ultimate value of a

brand is simply how much others will pay to get their hands on it” (Sherrington, 2003, p. 161).


26

Companies must be able to determine just how much others will pay for the brand, and this is

determined by how highly consumers think of the brand, how motivated they are to purchase the

brand, and how tied they are to the brand.

Young and Rubicam’s Brand Asset Valuator

Companies pouring millions of dollars into brand building need to track their brands.

They must determine which instrument will give them the information needed. In regards to

measures for brand tracking Schultz (2002) stated:

Attitudinal measures, such as awareness, recall, and recognition are used most often. They generally take the form of brand-tracking, awareness-and-usage, or intent-to-buy studies among samples of the relevant population. Most brand measurement approaches such as the Y & R ‘Brand Asset Valuator,’ Millward-Brown’s ‘Brand Dynamics,’ and Market Facts’ ‘Conversion’ model are all based on some type of attitudinal measure, commonly attitudinal change. (p. 2)

Young and Rubicam’s (Y and R’s) Brand Asset Valuator (BAV) is an exhaustive

research tool that “measures consumer perceptions of brands on an ongoing basis, and it provides

an understanding of how consumers evaluate brands, how brands gain and lose strength, and how

brands can be managed for long-term success. The tool also evaluates the comparative strength

of a brand” (Shatrujeet, 2003, p. 1).

According to its Web site, “Young and Rubicam Inc. is a diversified, global marketing

and communications organization with integrated services in advertising, database marketing and

customer relationship management, perception management and public relations, branding

identity consultation and design services, and healthcare communications” (Inside, 2001, p. 1).

Since BAV’s inception in 1993, the company has devoted over $70 million to “building the most

comprehensive global database of consumer perceptions on brands. Brand Asset Valuator is

Young and Rubicam’s proprietary tool for building and managing brands, and one of the most


27

extensive research programs on branding ever taken” (Brand Asset Valuator, 2001, p. 1). BAV

has grown since its beginning with “over 121 studies, using the same methodology” to 183,494

consumers in 40 countries interviewed about 198,000 brands (Brand Asset Valuator, 2001, p. 1).

Many aspects of marketing are difficult if not impossible to measure. Y and R’s Brand

Asset Valuator was developed in an effort to address such questions as “How do you manage

what you can’t measure? What value are investments that are not linked to returns?” (Young

and Rubicam, Inc., 2003, p. 2). Previous measures have not provided companies with a way to

identify problems within a brand before permanent damage has been done. BAV allows

companies an opportunity for continual brand evaluation. Problem areas can be spotted and

addressed before any devastating damage can be done to the brand’s image. Y and R stated, “A

brand is too valuable an asset to manage without the help of smart metrics to help make the

smartest decisions. By adopting a clear definition of a brand and precisely measuring it in a way

that is linked to financial performance, marketers can gain an edge in making more intelligent

brand decisions” (Young and Rubicam, Inc., 2003, p. 2).

BAV works on the premise brands are brought to life through a “very specific

progression of four consumer perceptions: Differentiation, Relevance, Esteem, and Knowledge”

(Young and Rubicam, Inc., 2003, p. 3). These four pillars of branding are important and are

brought about in a systematic way, “but the real action takes place in the relationships between

these measures. Managing the relationships between the measures is the key to brand health”

(What is Brand Asset Valuator, 2001, p. 1).

Through extensive research, Y and R found these four characteristics were chosen as

the pillars to BAV “because movement in these, more than any other combination of dimensions,


28

explains why brands grow, how they can get sick and how they can be managed back to health.

The quantitative relationships among these dimensions provide the basis of brand diagnosis”

(Young and Rubicam, Inc., 2003, p. 4).

Differentiation

According to Y and R, differentiation is the single most important aspect of the four

measures. “Differentiation is the engine that pulls the brand train. Differentiation is critical to

brand success. If a brand is going to be successful, it must first build differentiation” (Young and

Rubicam, Inc., 2003, p. 4). McFarland, 2002, pointed out 32,025 new packaged goods were

introduced in 2001, and products have to be different to get noticed (p. 3).

Boone and Kurtz (1999) wrote, “Differentiation refers to a brand’s ability to stand apart

from competitors…According to the Y and R model, marketers who want to develop a strong

brand must start with a feature that no competitors match in consumers’ minds” (p. 402). Van

Auken (2001) echoed their comments, “Relevant differentiation is the defining aspect of a brand.

It is the most important thing a brand can deliver. Numerous studies have shown that relevant

differentiation today is a leading-edge indicator of profitability and market share tomorrow”

(p. 4).

There are three relevant aspects to differentiation including different, unique, and

distinctive. These aspects are defined as:

1. Different captures the ability of an offering to stand out from its competition.

2. Unique characteristics tend to reflect a brand’s essence, beliefs, and personality.

3. Distinctive is about a brand’s prestige and pricing power (Young and Rubicam, Inc.,

2003, p. 4).


29

Marketers face a tough challenge when trying to differentiate their product offerings

from all the myriad of others that are available to consumers. Keller, Sternthal, and Tybout

(2002) warn, “It is important to avoid a one-dimensional view of differentiation” and contend

there are three types of brand differences including:

1. Brand performance- The way a product or service attempts to meet a customers’

needs.

2. Brand imagery- Who uses the brand and under what circumstances.

3. Consumer insight- Is used when performance and imagery do not differ much. Brand

has insight into a consumer’s problems or goals (p. 6).

Van Auken (2001) warns against using price as a differentiator “because it is easily

copied, reduces profits and dilutes brand equity. Product functions and features are also poor

differentiators because they also can be easily copied. The most powerful differentiators tend to

be one of the following:

1. Emotional, experiential and self-expressive benefits

2. Other non-rational benefits

3. Customer service elements that are invisible to competitors (such as rigorous customer

service training followed by customer service employee empowerment) 4. The carefully engineered ‘total brand experience’ (p. 4).

Clancy (2002) supported Van Auken’s opinions on price when he wrote, “Discounting

tells your loyal customers that it is wrong to care so much about the brand; it is not worth that

much…Brand loyalty is based on the idea that a product or service is uniquely better and


30

different, not cheaper. Discounting erases the key difference with the competitor’s products”

(p. 2).

Product differentiators may or may not last the product’s lifetime. Companies must be

willing to “reassess points of parity from time to time, because attributes that were once

differentiators can become minimum requirements” of a competing company’s product

introduction (Keller, Sternthal, and Tybout, 2002, p. 5).

Differentiators remain an important factor throughout the life of a product. They do not

lose their importance when the other three pillars, relevance, esteem and knowledge come to the

forefront. “It remains crucial, even as a brand’s performance on the other Pillars grows and

remains strong, and even as a brand achieves market leadership…A low or declining level of

differentiation is a clear warning—often the first warning—that a brand is fading” (Young and

Rubicam, Inc., 2003, p. 5).

Relevance

Step two in building brands is relevance. A brand must show how it fits into consumers’

lives. If it is not accomplished, consumers lose interest in the brand and go elsewhere. Boone and

Kurtz (1999) wrote, “Relevance refers to the real and perceived importance of the brand to a

large consumer segment. A large number of consumers must feel a need for the benefits offered

by the brand” (p. 402).

“Differentiation gives birth to the brand and is critical for its continued reason for being,

while relevance drives franchise size” (Young and Rubicam, Inc., 2003, p. 6). Consumers are

inundated with thousands of brands each year including new launches as well as old brands, and


31

in order to remain in the forefront of these competitors, companies must continually prove their

relevance to the consumer.

Esteem

Esteem, “the extent to which consumers like a brand and hold it in high regard,” is the

third pillar of BAV (Young and Rubicam, Inc., 2003, p. 6). Boone and Kurtz (1999) describe

esteem as a “combination of perceived quality and consumer perceptions about the growing or

declining popularity of a brand. A rise in perceived quality increases consumer admiration for

the brand” (Boone and Kurtz, 1999, p. 402).

Y and R stated, “Esteem relates to how well a brand fulfills its implied or overtly stated

consumer promise,” and this pillar consists of two important components: perceptions of quality

and popularity (Young and Rubicam, Inc., 2003, p. 6-7). Young and Rubicam outlines those

components as

1. Quality- One’s own experience with the brand.

2. Popularity- How consumers think others experience the brand (Young and Rubicam,

Inc., 2003, p. 7).

Knowledge

The fourth pillar Y and R’s BAV is knowledge. Boone and Kurtz (1999) wrote,

“Knowledge refers to the extent of customers’ awareness of the brand and understanding of its

identity. Knowledge implies that customers feel an intimate relationship with a brand” (p. 402).

Young and Rubicam defined it as, “High knowledge means consumers understand and have

internalized what the brand stands for. High knowledge cannot be attained only by higher levels

of media support spending. It has to be achieved, and it generally takes time. Knowledge is the


32

end result of all the marketing and communications efforts and experiences consumers have had

with a brand” (Young and Rubicam, Inc., 2003, p. 7).

The four pillars are individually very important to the valuation process, however, the

relationships between these four pillars are essential factors, as well. “There are two healthy

patterns. When differentiation is greater than relevance, the brand has room to grow…When

relevance is significantly greater than differentiation, the brand has become commoditized. Its

uniqueness has faded and price has become the primary reason to buy” (Young and Rubicam,

Inc., 2003, p. 7).

Other relationship patterns include those of esteem and knowledge. “The other healthy

pattern is when esteem is greater than knowledge…Consumers have motivation to find out more

about your brand,” and when knowledge is greater than esteem, consumers know the product

very well, but are not necessarily motivated to buy (Young and Rubicam, Inc., 2003, p. 8).

Brand Strength and Brand Stature

Brand strength and brand stature are realized by combining the four pillars. “Relevance

and differentiation are the key elements of brand strength,” and they are “essential in mapping

the life of a brand” (Young and Rubicam, Inc., 2003, p. 6-8). Esteem and knowledge make up

brand stature, and this “captures a brand’s pervasiveness in the marketplace” (Young and

Rubicam, Inc., 2003, p. 8).

Young and Rubicam devised a power grid in which to measure brand strength and

brand stature. “The power grid provides a model for mapping and diagnosing the life of a brand,”

and its quadrants reflect new and unfocused brands, niche and unrealized potential of brands,

leadership brands, and eroding brands (Young and Rubicam, Inc., 2003, p. 9). Leadership is the


33

quadrant companies strive to achieve; however, it is not an easy feat since “only 2% of brands in

BAV achieve leadership status: above 80% on all four pillars” (Young and Rubicam, Inc., 2003,

p. 9).

CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY

Research replication is common practice and is highly encouraged within the scientific

community. Cooper and Schindler (2001) defined replication as “repeating an experiment with

different subject groups and conditions” (p. 394). According to Babbie (1989), replication of

“inquiry provides another safeguard” (p. 9) and is “the duplication of an experiment to expose or

reduce error” (p. G7).

All research stands alone and can never be fully replicated. Different elements enter into

each research event. Babbie (1989), stated, “As in all other forms of scientific research,

replication of research findings strengthens our confidence in the validity and generalizability of

those findings” (p. 232). However, Neuliep (1991) pointed out, “The same experiment can never

be repeated by even the same experimenter. At the very least, the subjects and the experimenters

themselves are different over series of replications” (Neuliep, 1991, p. 2). The author outlined

three “variables affecting the value, or utility, of any particular replication” as:

1. When the replication is conducted

2. How the replication is conducted

3. By whom the replication is conducted (Neuliep, 1991, p. 2).

The research replicated was a quantitative study consisting of a 65-question survey (see

Appendix A). The survey was done on an annual basis by the United Way of America and was

conducted through telephone interviews with 1,500 adults nationwide. Permission was granted

by UWA for the study to be replicated for United Way of Putnam County (see Appendix E).

UWA outsourced the telephone interviews to an interviewing house that utilizes CFMC

software in programming the survey. This allowed interviewers to program the survey into the


35

computer so it became an automated process. According to Andrea Brunk, former Director of

Market Research of United Way of America, “The interviewer does not have to pay attention to

skip patterns because the computer does that for him. He only has to ask the questions that

appear on the screen and check a box on the computer screen” (personal communication,

February 7, 2005). The organization also used a sampling company, Polk, based out of

Southfield, Michigan. Polk has “access to over 100 million households compiled from over 30

distinct sources of demographic data” which includes auto title registration, phone directories,

and census data (Polk, 2005, p. 1).

Demographically, Putnam County’s 34,928 residents are divided relatively evenly

among gender with 51% female and 49% male. Breakdowns for race are 96.3% white, .2%

African-American, .2% Native American, .2% Asian, and 4.4% Hispanic (U.S. Census Bureau,

2006, p. 2).

The median age of Putnam County was 36, and the age rundown included:

1. 18% ages 15 to 24

2. 37% ages 25 to 44

3. 27% ages 45 to 64

4. 18% ages 65 and older (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006, p. 2).

There were 12,753 households in the county with 2.81 persons per household. Most of

those households were made up of married couples, 63%, and 23% have never been married. Out

of a civilian labor force of 17,609, 17,095 are employed. Manufacturing was the largest

employment segment in Putnam County accounting for 31% of all jobs followed by management


36

and professional, 24%; sales and office, 20%; service, 13; and construction, 11% (US Census

Bureau, 2005, p. 1).

Economic data for Putnam County include:

1. Median household income is $46,426

2. Median family income is $52,859

3. Males’ median income is $36,548

4. Females’ median income is $23,963

5. Per capita income is $18,680 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006, p. 3)

The replicated study was conducted among Putnam County residents and was a

geographic survey making it clustered in scope, and its only criterion for participation was the

respondent be 18 years of age or older. Participants were directed to a Web address and asked to

complete the study on-line. Putnam County Sentinel, a local daily newspaper in Putnam County,

published a newspaper article describing the survey and asked county residents for their

participation. The newspaper editor and the researcher wrote the newspaper article jointly. The

newspaper’s circulation is 19,000 copies on weekdays, and 20,000 papers on Sunday with

11,000 papers going to the 15,138 Putnam County households covering 73%. A series of

newspaper advertisements were also purchased directing residents to take part in the survey and

how they could become involved. Other options used to recruit participants included a flier

inserted in the county paper and e-mails sent to county residents through the aid of local business

and industry.

The total population of Putnam County was 34,726. Of that number, 70% of the

population (24,410) was 18 and older, and that was the group surveyed within the county (US


37

Census Bureau, 2005, p. 1). For the purposes of this study, a minimum of 379 surveys were

needed to achieve a confidence level of 95% and a confidence interval of 5%. The national

survey had a confidence level of 95% and confidence interval of 2.5%, and if UWPC duplicated

the same confidence interval level, the organization would have to gather 1,479 surveys. Because

of time and money constraints, the researcher opted for the confidence interval of 5% in which

researchers attempted to conduct 379 surveys. The sample size formula was provided through

Creative Research Systems’ online sample size calculator. The formula used for the

determination is below:

Z2 * (p) * (1-p) SS = ________________

C2

Where:

Z = Z value (e.g. 1.96 for 95% confidence level)

p = percentage picking a choice, expressed as decimal (.5 used for sample size needed)

C = confidence interval, expressed as decimal (e.g., .04 = ± 4)

Care was taken to make sure participation in the on-line survey reflected the

demographic makeup of Putnam County including age, gender, ethnicity, income levels, and

education. This stratification of the study ensured survey results were applicable to Putnam

County.


38

Table 1. Putnam County Demographics

Age 15-24 25-44 45-64 65 and older 18% 37% 27% 18%

Gender Male Female 49% 51%

Ethnicity White African-American

Native American

Asian Hispanic

96.3% .2% .2% .2% 4.4%

Household Income

0-$14,999 $15,000-$34,999

$35,000-$74,999

$75,000- $149,999

$150,000-and up

11% 25.1% 44.6% 17.3% 2%

Education (25 and older)

Less than 9th grade

9th to 12th grade-no diploma

High school graduate including

GED

Some college – No degree

Associate degree

Bachelor’s degree

Graduate

5% 8.9% 47.7 16% 9.5% 9% 3.9%

Own Rent Homeowner 84% 16%

Married Never Married

Divorced Widowed

Marital Status 63% 23.3% 6.2% 6.7%

If unable to attain the proper demographic makeup through newspaper and e-mail

contact, the researcher would have used radio and random postcards to encourage survey

participation. Putnam County had two radio stations: WBUK in Ottawa and WLWD located in

Columbus Grove. Other larger radio stations with regional draws existed outside the county

including stations in Defiance and Lima, Ohio.

The study was conducted on-line using SurveySolutions Express a product developed

by Perseus Development Corporation located in Braintree, Massachusetts. It was modified

slightly because of the change in the data collection method from telephone calls conducted by


39

UWA to an Internet based application. Web based surveys are very valuable to many

organizations including non-profits like UWPC, and they provided a cost-effective, timesaving

avenue allowing organizations the ability to reach millions of people. According to Perseus

(2004),

Electronic commerce and the impact of the Internet on communication have opened new worlds for surveys. Hundreds of millions of people world-wide have access to e-mail and the Web. Answers come back in an electronic format, so putting them into a computer is easier. A survey can reach people in a matter of seconds, rather than days or months while completing phone calls or waiting for the mail to come in. (p. 4)

Access to computers and the Internet have increased significantly over the past few

years. According to Cooper and Schindler (2001), nearly “61 percent of U.S. households are

actively online, and once connected, 91 percent are likely to continue their Internet subscription”

(p. 339). The authors also point out several advantages for Web surveys:

1. Short turnaround of results; results are tallied as respondents complete surveys

2. Ability to use visual stimuli

3. Ability to do numerous surveys over time

4. Ability to attract participants who wouldn’t participate in another research project,

including international respondents

5. Respondents feel anonymous

6. Shortened turnaround from survey draft to execution of survey

7. Experiences unavailable by other means (Cooper and Schindler, 2001, p. 340).

Disadvantages for the design include:

1. Recruiting the right sample is costly and time-consuming

2. Converting surveys to the Web can be expensive


40

3. It takes technical as well as research skill to field a Web survey

4. While research is more compatible with numerous browsers, the technology is not

perfect (Cooper and Schindler, 2001, p. 340).

The study was descriptive in nature, which according to Babbie (1989) means it is a

“method for presenting quantitative descriptions in a manageable form” (p. 437). Cooper and

Schindler (2001) stated descriptive research tells the “who, what, when, where, and how of a

topic” (p. 161). Basic ways to analyze these studies include measures of location such as mean

(average), median (midpoint of distribution), and mode (the most regularly occurring value)

(Cooper and Schindler, 2001, p. 474-475).

The survey results were reviewed through graphical breakdowns and frequency tables,

which offers the “simplest method for analyzing categorical (nominal) data. They are often used

as one of the exploratory procedures to review how different categories of values are distributed

in the sample” (StatSoft, 1984, p. 14). Data was analyzed through crosstabulation, which is a

“combination of two (or more) frequency tables arranged such that each cell in the resulting table

represents a unique combination of specific values of crosstabulated variables” (StatSoft, 1984,

p. 15). Other review techniques included:

1. Column, row, and total percentages

2. Graphical representations of crosstabulations

3. Stub and banner tables (StatSoft, 1984, p. 16-17).

A comparison of the data was made to that obtained by UWA and its national survey. In

addressing the study of replications, Neuliep (1991), stated:

Replications provide for external validity, to the extent that their results are in agreement with those of the study being replicated. If the results are not in


41

agreement, doubt is cast on the internal validity of the original study. But replication can be important even in the case of studies that are not experiments. This is true in physics and biology and there is no reason to think that it should not be so for the social sciences. (p.3)

The author further stated, “We are, all things being equal, more persuaded by evidence

that is reliable, and the best empirical test of the reliability of evidence is provided by

replication” (Neuliep, 1991, p. 32). He outlined replications as three types:

1. Conceptual replications which is “an attempt to convey the same crucial structure of

information in the independent variables to subjects, but by a radical transformation

of the procedural variables” of the primary information focus.

2. Partial replications where there is “some change (deletion or addition) in part of the

procedural variables, while other parts are duplicated as in the original experiment.”

3. Exact replications are “duplicated as exactly as possible. That is, the physical

procedures are reinstituted as closely as possible…It is implicitly assumed that

variables classes 1-6 are either the same as in the original experiment or are

irrelevant” (Neuliep, 1991, p. 45-46).

Anonymity for participants is important and was duly protected. Data was collected

through SurveySolutions Express on-line venue, and it was hosted by the company’s server and

ensured the privacy of those visiting the Web site to take the survey. Participants were informed

of the methods by which their responses will be anonymous. Surveys were examined for their

completeness. Those that appeared incomplete may have had useable components and may have

been included in the responses. Some participants may not have felt comfortable answering all

questions; however, the answers they did produce should be used in the analysis if appropriate.


42

The survey was posted and pilot tested by members of UWPC’s 15 member Marketing

and Communication Committee as well as 10 participants who are not closely connected to

United Way. This ensured there were both people familiar with United Way and those who were

not at all familiar with the organization testing the survey instrument. Testing the instrument

allowed the researcher to check for errors on the survey, ease of the use of the survey, and its

readability. If the sample did not meet the researcher’s expectations, corrections were made to

bring it inline.

Survey Timeline

A timeline was developed to better facilitate the survey process, and the research

activities for the study are outlined below:

Day 1 1. Survey, which has been previously posted and tested, was made

available to the public

2. Article published in Putnam County Sentinel outlining UWPC’s

research endeavors and how Putnam County residents can participate

3. Surveys administered through the Internet

Day 8

1. Assessment of number of participants in study

2. Advertisement published or flier inserted in Putnam County Sentinel

asking residents to participate in study

Day 15



43

2. Advertisement published or flier inserted in Putnam County Sentinel

asking residents to participate in study

Day 22


2. E-mail possible survey subjects to participate if necessary using

UWPC’s database of Putnam County residents

Day 30

1. Completion of surveys

2. Began data analysis

Study Limitations

As outlined previously, limitations of the study included: 1. Participation was constrained by the delivery method of the survey. Only

individuals who had access to the Internet were able to respond to the survey

2. Those who felt compelled to respond to the survey may have felt a close connection

to UWPC and its mission 3. There was no way to limit the number of times someone took the survey

4. Data was unique only to Putnam County

5. The replicated study was not conducted during the same time frame as the

national study

CHAPTER 4. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The question addressed in this study was: Do the results of the survey being replicated

by United Way of Putnam County Ohio mirror the findings of United Way of America’s national

survey? The data collection and analysis presented in Chapter Four shows the results of the on-

line survey conducted to evaluate this research question. The quantitative study consisted of a

65-question survey presented to residents of Putnam County Ohio.

There were 105 respondents to the survey of Putnam County residents. Nationally,

2,039 people took part in the original study. In Putnam County, 27% (25) of respondents were

male and 73% (68) were female. Nationally, respondents were equally divided at 50% (1,019)

male and female. The local study, with its predominately female participants, did not mirror the

results of the national survey, which had a fifty-fifty split on gender. The female population of

Putnam County is 50.7% (US Census Bureau, 2006, p. 1).

Table 2. Gender

Gender Male Female Total Putnam Co. 27% (25) 73% (68) 100% (93) National 50% (1,019) 50% (1,020) 100% (2,039)

The ages of Putman County respondents were 22% (21) ages 55 and over, 61% (58)

ages 35 to 54, 13% (12) ages 27 to 34, and 4% (4) ages 18 to 26. Nationally, participants were

36% (734) ages 55 and over, 41% (836) ages 35 to 54, 13% (265) ages 27 to 34, and 9% (184)

ages 18 to 26. Most Putnam County responses were provided by those who were ages 35 to 54 at

61%, and the same is true nationally at 41% for that age group. An overwhelming majority of


45

participants were over 35 years of age for both studies. The age breakdown for Putnam County

is18 to 24, 9.2%; 25 to 44, 27.4%; 45 to 64, 23.9%; and 65 and older, 12.9%.

Table 3. Age

Age 55 and up 35-54 27-34 18-26 Total Putnam Co. 22% (21) 61%(58) 13% (12) 4% (4) 100% (95) National 36% (734) 41% (836) 13% (265) 9% (184) 99% (2,019)

In regards to education in Putnam County, 11% (10) of respondents were high school

graduates, 15% (14) had attended some college, 51% (48) were college graduates, and 24% (23)

attended graduate school. Nationally, 33% (673) were high school graduates, 53% (1,081)

college graduates, and 14% (285) attended graduate school. The majority of respondents for both

surveys were college grads with 51% for Putnam County and 53% for the national study. The

number for graduate school attendees was significantly higher for Putnam County, which

reported 24% to the national number of 14%. The education breakdown of Putnam County is less

than ninth grade, 4.1%; ninth to twelfth grade with no diploma, 11.2%; high school graduate

including GED, 45.8%; some college but no degree, 18.3%; associate degree, 6.3%; bachelor’s

degree, 9.7%; and graduate school, 4.6%.

Table 4. Education

Education High School Some College College Grad Grad School Total Putnam Co. 11% (10) 15% (14) 51% (48) 24% (23) 101% (95) National 33% (673) 53% (1,081) 14% (285) 100% (2,039)

Putnam County survey participants reported their employment status as 74% (70)

worked full time, 12% (11) worked part time, 6% (6) worked full time and were self-employed,


46

none were part-time and self-employed, and 7% (7) were retired. United Way of America survey

respondents reported their employment status as 44% (897) worked full time, 8% (163) worked

part time, 7% (143) worked full time and were self-employed, 1% (20) were part-time and self-

employed, 24% (489) were retired, and 16% (326) unemployed. The national number for retiree

participants was 24% compared to 7% for Putnam County, which is an important difference.

Nationally 16% identified themselves as not employed, with 1% from Putnam County not

employed. Full-time workers from Putnam County was 74%, 30% higher than the national

results.

Table 5. Employment

Employment Full Time Part Time Self-Full Time Self-Part Time Retired Not Employed

Total

Putnam Co. 74% (70) 12% (11) 6% (6) 7% (7) 1% (1) 100% (95)

National 44% (897) 8% (163) 7% (143) 1% (20) 24% (489) 16% (326) 100% (2,038)

Those involved in labor unions in Putnam County numbered 5% (5), and 95% (88)

stated they were not affiliated with a union. UWA’s respondents reported 9% (184) were union

employees and 91% (1,855) were non-union workers. The Putnam County study mirrored the

responses of the national survey.

Table 6. Labor Union Affiliation

Labor Union Yes No Total Putnam Co. 5% (5) 95% (88) 100% (93) National 9% (184) 91% (1,855) 100% (2,039)


47

The marital status of UWPC respondents was reported as 87% (80) married, 11% (10)

single, 1% (1) separated, 1% (1) divorced, and 1% (1) refused to answer. Nationally, marital

status was 23% (469) married, 56% (1,142) single, 2% (41) separated, and 11% (224) divorced.

The information provided by Putnam County participants was markedly unlike those obtained

for the national study. Most participants in Putnam County were married with 87% reporting this

as the case. Nationally, 23% were married and 56% were single. The number of divorced

participants was 11% nationally and 1% for Putnam County.

Table 7. Marital Status

Marital Status Married Single Separated Divorced Refused Total Putnam Co. 87% (80) 11% (10) 1% (1) 1% (1) 1% (1) 101% (93) National 23% (469) 56% (1,142) 2% (41) 11%(224) 92% (1,876)

Those with children under five in Putnam County households accounted for 19% (18)

and those without were 81% (77). Nationally, those with children under five numbered 14%

(285) and those without 86% (1,754). Putnam County survey findings paralleled those of the

national survey.

Table 8. Under Five Years of Age in Households

Children Under 5 Yes No Total Putnam Co. 19% (18) 81% (77) 100% (95) National 14% (285) 86% (1,754) 100% (2,039

Putnam County participants reported 94% (88) owned their own homes and 4% (4)

rented; 74% (1,509) owned homes nationally and 26% (530) rented their place of residence.


48

While home ownership was high for both studies, it was significantly high in Putnam County

nearly all participants were homeowners, which was 20% higher than the national survey.

Table 9. Rent/Own Residence

Residence Own Rent Total Putnam Co. 94% (88) 4% (4) 98% (92) National 74% (1,509) 26% (530) 100% (2,039)

Putnam County home e-mail accounts were reported at 69% (65) having one and 26%

(24) not subscribing to home e-mail. Nearly 48% (979) of UWA respondents had a home e-mail

account, while 52% (1,060) did not. Nationally, over half of the survey respondents reported no

home e-mail address, with only 26% of Putnam County respondents reporting the same. Almost

70% of Putnam County participants had home e-mail address. The number was high considering

the rural local of the county.

Table 10. Home E-Mail Access

Home E-mail Yes No Total Putnam Co. 69% (65) 26% (24) 95% (89) National 48% (979) 52% (1,060) 100% (2.039)

Income levels for Putnam County were identified as under $15,000, 1% (1); $15,000 to

$25,000, 3% (3); $25,000 to $50,000, 11% (10); $50,000 to $100,000, 56% (52); $100,000 to

$150,000, 13% (12); and $150,000 and up, 3% (3). Income levels nationally were under $15,000,

14% (285); $15,000 to $25,000, 14% (285); $25,000 to $50,000, 30% (612); $50,000 to

$100,000, 29% (591); $100,000 to $150,000, 8% (163); and $150,000 and up, 5% (102). A

minimal number of Putnam County respondents said their income was under $15,000 compared


49

to 14% for the national survey. Most national survey participants stated they made $25,000 to

$50,000 (30%) or $50,000 to $100,000 (29%). Putnam County’s stated 56% made $50,000 to

$100,000 and 13% made $100,000 to $150,000, which are high salary ranges for the county.

Putnam County income breakdowns are 0 to $14,999, 11.4%; $15,000 to $34,999, 24.9%;

$35,000 to $74,999, 45.2%; $75,000 to $149,999, 17.1%; and $150,000 and up 1.5%.

Table 11. Income

Income Under $15,000 $15,000-$25,000

$25,000-$50,000

$50,000- $100,000

$100,000- $150,000

$150,000 and up

Total

Putnam Co. 1% (1) 3% (3) 11% (10) 56% (52) 13% (12) 3% (3) 87% (71) National 14% (285) 14% (285) 30% (612) 29% (591) 8% (163) 5% (102) 100% (2,038)

Ethnicity of Putnam County participants were white, 97% (90); African-American, 0;

Hispanic-American 2% (2); Native-American, 0; Asian-American, 0; and other 1% (1).

Nationally, ethnicity was white, 79% (1,611); African-American, 11% (224); Hispanic-American

5% (102); Native-American, 1% (20); Asian-American, 2% (41); and other 3% (61). The

ethnicity of Putnam County is predominantly white, a fact represented by the respondents’

answers. The breakdown for Putnam County’s ethnicity is white, 92.6%; African-American,

1.8%; Native-American, .3%; Asian-American, .4%; Hispanic, 7.2%; and other, 3.6%.

Table 12. Ethnicity

Ethnicity White African Am Hispanic Native Am Asian Am Other Total Putnam Co. 97% (90) 2% (2) 1% (1) 99% (92) National 79% (1,611) 11% (224) 5% (102) 1% (20) 2% (41) 3% (61) 101% (2,059)


50

Question 2A asked survey respondents how much confidence in general they had in

charities to do a good job. UWPC reported 41% (41) had a great deal of confidence, 54% (53)

had a fair amount, and 5% (5) did not have too much. Nationally, 31% (632) stated they had a

great deal of confidence, 50% (1,020) had a fair amount, 15% (306) did not have too much, and

5% (102) had none at all. Putnam County reported 95% had a great deal and a fair amount of

confidence, while nationally the numbers were at 81%.

Table 13. Confidence in Charities in General (A great deal and a fair amount)

Great Deal Fair Amount Not Too Much None at All Total Putnam County 41% (41) 54% (53) 5% (5) 100% (99) Nationally 31% (632) 50% (1,020) 15% (306) 5% (102) 101% (2,060)

Questions 2B, C, and D asked how much confidence participants had in United Way,

Salvation Army, and American Red Cross, respectively, to do a good job. Concerning United

Way, Putnam County respondents reported their confidence level as 58% (56), a great deal of

confidence; 38% (37), a fair amount; 3% (3), not too much; 0, none at all; and 2% (2), did not

know. UWA reported 32% of participants had a great deal of confidence in United Way; 41%, a

fair amount; 17%, not too much; and 10%, none at all. Respondents from Putnam County stated

95% had a great deal and a fair amount of confidence in United Way, while national participants

findings were 73%. Both ratings are high; however, Putnam County residents were nearly

significantly higher in their confidence rating.

Putnam County rated Salvation Army as 27% (26), a great deal of confidence; 60%

(59), a fair amount; 6% (6), not too much; 1% (1), none at all; and 6% (6), did not know. UWA

respondents stated 51% a great deal; 38%, a fair amount; 7%, not too much; and 4%, none at all.


51

Respondents from Putnam County stated 87% had a great deal and a fair amount of confidence

in Salvation Army, while national participants findings were 89%. The numbers are nearly the

same for both studies.

Putnam County rated American Red Cross as 56% (55), a great deal of confidence;

38% (37), a fair amount; 6% (6), not too much; 0, none at all; and 0, did not know. United Way

of America reported 55% had a great deal; 32%, a fair amount; 7%, not too much; and 6%, none

at all. The following table shows the public’s confidence in American Red Cross, Salvation

Army, and United Way both nationally and in Putnam County. Respondents from Putnam

County stated 94% had a great deal and a fair amount of confidence in American Red Cross,

while national participants findings were 88%. Both ratings, again, are high. However, Putnam

County is six percentage points higher than national levels.

Table 14. Confidence in Specific Charities (A great deal and a fair amount)

United Way Red Cross Salvation Army

Putnam County 95% 94% 87% Nationally 73% 88% 89%

Question 3A gauged giving to charitable organizations within Putnam County and

respondents were asked which non-profit or charitable organizations they had contributed money

to in the past 12 months (multiple answers were accepted). United Way scored 70% (74);

churches and religious organizations, 68% (71); American Cancer Society, 50% (53); American

Red Cross, 45% (47); Boy Scouts, 30% (32); cancer (general), 30% (32); education

(miscellaneous), 28% (29); disaster relief, 25% (26); St. Jude’s Research and Hospital, 23% (24);


52

Girl Scouts, 22% (23); community, fire, police, and rescue, 21% (22); school/university alumni,

19% (20); and Salvation Army, 18% (19). UWA reported Salvation Army at 20%, United Way

at 15%, churches and religious organizations at 13%, American Red Cross at 11%, American

Cancer Society at 9%, community, fire, and police at 5%, and 20% said they did not make any

charitable contributions. Putnam County donors favor giving to United Way and churches and

religious organizations at nearly 70% for each; this is substantially higher than the national

answers, which put United Way at 15% and churches and religious organizations at 13%. The

Salvation Army was the highest nationally with 20% reporting contributions within the last 12

months; this compared to Putnam County’s 18%. The results were reported as follows:

Table 15. Giving to Charitable Organizations

Putnam County Percentage Number UWAUnited Way 70% 74 15% Church/Religious Org. 68% 71 13% American Cancer Society 50% 53 9% American Red Cross 45% 47 11% Boy Scouts 30% 32 Cancer (General) 30% 32 Education (misc.) 28% 29 Disaster Relief 25% 26 St. Jude’s/Research/Hospital 23% 24 Girl Scouts 22% 23 Community/Fire/Police/Rescue 21% 22 5% School/University Alumni 19% 20 Salvation Army 18% 19 20%

Question 4 asked respondents if they personally investigate charities to which they

donate money. In Putnam County, 53% (51) responded they did investigate, and 45% (43)


53

responded they did not. The national survey results showed 45% personally investigate charities

while 55% did not. The responses were flipped for the two surveys.

Question 5 focused on trust in charities and asked participants if, in general, they

trusted charities to do what they say they will do with the money. UWPC participants answered

yes, 38% (36); no, 2% (2); I trust some charities, but not others, 59% (57); and 1% (1), did not

know. UWA’s results were 51%, yes; 15%, no; and 34%, some but not all charities were trusted.

Participants were asked with Questions 6, 7, and 8 if they trusted United Way, American Red

Cross, and Salvation Army, respectively, to do what they say they will do with donated funds.

Putnam County’s responses for United Way were yes, 95% (91); no, 2% (2); and do not know,

3% (3). Nationally, responses for United Way were yes, 75% and no, 25%. Putnam County’s

trust in American Red Cross to do what it says it will do with the money were yes, 82% (80); no,

7% (7); and do not know, 10% (10). Nationally, American Red Cross ranked yes, 88% and no,

12%. Putnam County scored Salvation Army as yes, 65% (62); no, 6% (6); and do not know,

29% (28). Nationally, Salvation Army was yes, 91% and no, 9%. Trust in charities, nationally, is

higher for charities in general, Salvation Army, and American Red Cross than it is in Putnam

County with the broadest difference for Salvation Army. Nationally, United Way ranks the least

of the three charities, but is higher than charities in general. Within Putnam County, United Way

is ranked significantly higher than Salvation Army, American Red Cross, and charities in general

with 95% have trust in it. Responses to trust in charities are illustrated in Figure 5 below:


54

0

20

40

60

80

100

UnitedWay

Red Cross SalvationArmy

Charitiesin General

NationallyPutnam County

Question 13A focused on awareness of 211, which is a United Way initiative

encouraging communities to adopt 211 as its local information and referral number for social

services. Putnam County responses indicated 29% (28) had heard of 211, 70% (68) had not, and

1% (1) did not know. Nationally, only 6% were aware of 211. Putnam County respondents are

much more aware of the 211 initiative than those nationally.

Question 16 focused on awareness of United Way’s Success by Six, an early childhood

education program; State of Caring Index, a tool to measure giving within a specific donor area;

and United Way Draft. In Putnam County, 9% (9) had heard of Success by Six, 13% (14) had

heard of the State of Caring Index, 6% (6) had heard of United Way Draft, and 73% (77) had not

heard of any of the programs. Nationally, the breakdown was Success by Six, 6% were aware;

State of Caring Index, 8%; and United Way Draft, 5%. Putnam County residents are more aware

of other United Way initiatives as well. Figure 6 outlines those results.

Figure 5. Trust in charities is illustrated by responses toward United Way, Red Cross, Salvation Army, and charities in general. National and Putnam County responses are reported.


55

05

1015202530

211 Successby Six

State ofCaringIndex

UW Draft

Those answering in the affirmative


Question 14 asked respondents if they had heard of United Way. UWA reported 93% of

survey participants were aware of United Way, while 7% stated no. Within Putnam County, 98%

(95) of respondents were aware, and 2% (2) stated no. Awareness of United Way both nationally

and in Putnam County is extremely high.

Favorability of United Way was the focus of Question 15, and participants were asked,

“Thinking about everything you know, what is your overall opinion of United Way?” Nationally,

36% were very favorable; 40%, somewhat favorable; 14%, somewhat unfavorable; and 10%,

very unfavorable. Putnam County stated 59% (57) were very favorable; 36% (35), somewhat

favorable; 4% (4), somewhat unfavorable; 0%, very unfavorable; and 1% (1), did not know.

Nationally, very favorable and somewhat favorable totaled 76% of respondents, and in Putnam

County those numbers totaled 95%. While the rankings are good from both surveys, this makes a

very positive statement for United Way of Putnam County.

Figure 6. Awareness of United Way programs by recognizing 211, Success by Six, State of Caring Index, and the United Way Draft. National and Putnam County responses are reported.


56

The importance of and agreement with United Way brand promises are outlined in

Figures 7 and 8, which appear below. Both charts indicate the responses to “very” and

“somewhat important.” Survey question17 focused on this aspect by asking respondents: How

important is each item when deciding to contribute to or volunteer with a charitable organization:

1. An organization lets me know what is being accomplished with my contributions

2. An organization gets visible results in my community

3. An organization brings our community together to focus on solutions for the most

pressing community problems

4. An organization makes sure the money I give is well spent

5. An organization enables me to make the greatest difference in improving my

community

6. An organization energizes and inspires people to get involved in our community

Possible responses to those questions were very important, somewhat important, neither

important nor unimportant, somewhat unimportant, very unimportant, and do not know.

Nationally, the measures for very important and somewhat important for “let’s me know what is

being accomplished by my contributions,” 84%; “gets visible results in my community,” 86%;

“brings community together to focus on solutions,” 83%; “makes sure money I give is well

spent,” 92%; “enables me to make the greatest difference,” 83%; and “energizes and inspires

people to get involved,” 85%. UWPC reported the measures for very important and somewhat

important for these factors as “let’s me know what is being accomplished by my contributions,”

78% (82); “gets visible results in my community,” 80% (84); “brings community together to

focus on solutions,” 68% (71); “makes sure money I give is well spent,” 81% (85); “enables me


57

to make the greatest difference,” 78% (82); and “energizes and inspires people to get involved,”

74% (78). The numbers for very important and somewhat important are higher nationally for

each question, most significantly for “brings community together,” “money well spent,” and

“energizes and inspires.”

Survey question 18 asked respondents: For the next series of statements, tell how much

you agree with the statement:

1. United Way is an organization that lets me know what is being accomplished with

my contributions

2. United Way is an organization that gets visible results in my community

3. United Way is an organization that brings our community together to focus on

solutions for the most pressing community problems

4. United Way is an organization that makes sure the money I give is well spent

5. United Way is an organization that enables me to make the greatest difference in

improving my community

6. United Way is an organization that energizes and inspires people to get involved in

our community

Possible responses to those questions were strongly agree, somewhat agree, neither agree nor

disagree, somewhat disagree, strongly disagree, and do not know. Nationally, the measures for

strongly agree and somewhat agree for “United Way let’s me know what is being accomplished

by my contributions,” 51%; “United Way gets visible results in my community,” 53%; “United

Way brings community together to focus on solutions,” 51%; “United Way makes sure money I

give is well spent,” 58%; “United Way enables me to make the greatest difference,” 47%; and


58

“United Way energizes and inspires people to get involved,” 54%. Putnam County reported the

scores for strongly agree and somewhat agree for these factors as “United Way let’s me know

what is being accomplished by my contributions,” 64% (67); “United Way gets visible results in

my community,” 68% (71); “United Way brings community together to focus on solutions,”

58% (61); “United Way makes sure money I give is well spent,” 68% (71); “United Way enables

me to make the greatest difference,” 55% (58); and “United Way energizes and inspires people

to get involved,” 54% (57). In this instance, the numbers for very important and somewhat

important are higher in Putnam County with every question, most significantly for “gets visible

results” and “lets people know what is being accomplished.”

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Ener

gize

s/in

spire

s

Enab

les

me

tom

ake

diffe

renc

e

Mon

eyw

ells

pent

Brin

gsco

mm

unity

toge

ther

Get

svi

sibl

ere

sults

Lets

peop

lekn

ow


Figure 7. Importance of United Way brand promises is illustrated by measuring how United Way energizes and inspires, makes a difference, spends money well, brings together community, gets results, and educates and informs donors. National and Putnam County responses are reported.


59

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Ener

gize

s/in

spire

s

Enab

les

me

tom

ake

diffe

renc

e

Mon

eyw

ells

pent

Brin

gsco

mm

unity

toge

ther

Get

svi

sibl

ere

sults

Lets

peop

lekn

ow

Nationally

Putnam County

Question 19 measured the key attributes of United Way, Red Cross, and Salvation

Army. Survey participants were asked: Below is a series of adjectives used to describe the

United Way, Salvation Army, and American Red Cross. Please tell how much you agree or

disagree with each adjective as it applies to each charity. The adjectives describing the key

attributes included innovative, trustworthy, results oriented, arrogant, collaborative, influential,

and personal. Nationally, those answering strongly agree and somewhat agree for United Way

Figure 8. Agreement with United Way brand promises is illustrated by measuring how United Way energizes and inspires, makes a difference, spends money well, brings together community, gets results, and educates and informs donors. National and Putnam County responses are reported.


60

were innovative, 56%; trustworthy, 66%; results oriented, 62%; arrogant, 22%; collaborative,

57%; influential, 67%; and personal, 48%. UWPC’s responses in regards to United Way were

innovative, 59% (62); trustworthy, 80% (84); results oriented, 70% (73); arrogant, 12% (13);

collaborative, 67% (70); influential, 62% (65); and personal, 47% (49). The key attributes of

“personal” and “innovative” were scored nearly the same in both surveys. “Trustworthy” and

“collaborative” were scored significantly higher by Putnam County, and Putnam County’s

responses were more positive than those in the national survey for all categories except

“personal,” “influential,” and “arrogant.”

American Red Cross was rated as the following through UWA’s survey: innovative,

62%; trustworthy, 80%; results oriented, 78%; arrogant, 18%; collaborative, 68%; influential,

77%; and personal, 64%. UWPC’s responses in regards to ARC were innovative, 50% (53);

trustworthy, 73% (77); results oriented, 57% (60); arrogant, 12% (13); collaborative, 49% (51);

influential, 63% (66); and personal, 53% (56). The findings for Red Cross were more positive on

the national level than in Putnam County, with all key terms scoring better nationally. The most

significant differences were for “innovative,” “results-oriented,” and “influential.”

Salvation Army was scored as the following through UWA’s survey: innovative, 56%;

trustworthy, 82%; results oriented, 75%; arrogant, 14%; collaborative, 63%; influential, 69%;

and personal, 65%. Putnam County’s responses for Salvation Army were innovative, 33% (35);

trustworthy, 56% (59); results oriented, 43% (45); arrogant, 7% (7); collaborative, 36% (38);

influential, 39% (41); and personal, 32% (34). The details of United Way’s key attributes appear

in Figure 9, and Figures 10 and 11 identify those key attributes in regards to Red Cross and

Salvation Army, respectively. The data displayed indicates those who answered, “strongly” and


61

“somewhat agree.” Nationally, the Salvation Army scored more favorably in all key attributes

but “arrogant.” There were significant differences in all key terms.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Personal

Influential

Collaborative

Arrogant

Results Oriented

Trustworthy

Innovative

Putnam County

Nationally

Figure 9. Agreement of key attributes of United Way is displayed in regards to whether respondents found United Way innovative, trustworthy, results oriented, arrogant, collaborative, influential, and personal. National and Putnam County responses are reported.


62

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Personal

Influential

Collaborative

Arrogant

Results Oriented

Trustworthy

Innovative

Putnam County

Nationally

Figure 10. Agreement of key attributes of Red Cross is displayed in regards to whether respondents found Red Cross innovative, trustworthy, results oriented, arrogant, collaborative, influential, and personal. National and Putnam County responses are reported.


63

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Personal

Influential

Collaborative

Arrogant

Results Oriented

Trustworthy

Innovative

Putnam CountyNationally

Participants were asked with question 25: Overall, how satisfied are you with your

relationship with United Way? Possible responses were very satisfied, somewhat satisfied,

neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, somewhat dissatisfied, very dissatisfied, and do not know. In

regards to their satisfaction with United Way, participants from Putnam County reported 57%

(46) were very satisfied; 28% (23), somewhat satisfied; 12% (10), neither satisfied nor

dissatisfied; 1% (1) somewhat dissatisfied; no one reported being very dissatisfied; and 1% (1)

did not know. Nationally, satisfaction was stated as: 42%, very satisfied; 29%, somewhat

satisfied; 19%, neither satisfied nor dissatisfied; 5%, somewhat dissatisfied; and 4%, very

Figure 11. Agreement of key attributes of Salvation Army is displayed in regards to whether respondents found Salvation Army innovative, trustworthy, results oriented, arrogant, collaborative, influential, and personal. National and Putnam County responses are reported.


64

dissatisfied. Nationally, 71% scored their satisfaction as “very satisfied” and “somewhat

satisfied.” In Putnam County, the satisfaction was 85% considerable difference.

The likelihood of giving to United Way in the future is outlined in Figure 12.

Question 26 asked respondents, “How likely will you be to give to United Way in the future?”

Responses were very likely, somewhat likely, somewhat unlikely, very unlikely, and do not

know. Putnam County reported 68% (63) as very likely; 23% (21), somewhat likely; 0,

somewhat unlikely; 7% (6), very unlikely; and 2% (2), do not know. UWA’s findings were 25%,

very likely; 30%, somewhat likely; 15%, somewhat unlikely; and 31%, very unlikely. There is a

considerable difference in the scores for this particular question. Nationally, over 30% of

respondents are very unlikely to give to United Way in the future, while less than 10% reported

this. Those very likely to give in Putnam County were nearly 70%, and those very likely to give

nationally were 25%, a very significant difference in the surveys.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Very Likely

Somewhat Likely

Somewhat Unlikely

Very Unlikely


Figure 12. Likelihood of giving to United Way in the future is illustrated by responses from participants. National and Putnam County responses are reported.


65

Advertising awareness was measured with question 32 by asking participants if they

had seen heard, or read any advertisements from the American Red Cross, United Way, or the

Salvation Army. Putnam County reported 61% (64) had seen advertisements from American Red

Cross; 30% (31), Salvation Army; 67% (70), United Way; and 8% (8) did not know. Nationally,

the numbers were American Red Cross, 47%; Salvation Army, 40%; United Way, 31%; and

37%, did not see any ads. United Way advertisements were seen nationally by 31% of

respondents and by 67% of respondents in Putnam County. This shows an important difference

in advertising awareness on the national level and on the local level. American Red Cross

advertisements were viewed by 61% of Putnam County respondents and by 47% of national

participants. Viewership for Salvation Army advertisements was much less both nationally and

in Putnam County, with national respondents seeing the ads 40% of the time and Putnam County

30%. Those responses are summarized in Figure 13:

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

United Way Red Cross Salvation Army


Figure 13. Advertising awareness of United Way, American Red Cross, and Salvation Army was measured by asking participants if they had seen heard, or read any advertisements from the three organizations. National and Putnam County responses are reported.


66

Awareness of United Way advertising in specific media such as National Football

League TV spots, other TV spots featuring United Way, print (newspapers and magazines), radio

announcements, e-mail or electronic bulletin boards, and video and film was targeted with

question 33A and is charted in Figure 14. UWPC participants stated 34% (36) had seen the

television spots associated with the National Football League (NFL), 19% (20) had seen other

television spots featuring United Way, 43% (45) had seen ads in newspapers or magazines, 28%

(29) had heard announcements on the radio, 11% (12) had seen electronic mail or electronic

bulletin boards, and 3% (3) had seen a video or film about United Way. Nationally those

numbers were 40%, NFL television spots; 36%, other television spots featuring United Way;

30%, newspapers or magazines; 14%, radio; 11%, electronic mail or bulletin boards; and 5%,

video or film. Within Putnam County, the most important advertising channels were print and

NFL TV spots. Nationally, the important channels were NFL TV spots and other TV spots. The

greatest differences in responses were for radio and print, and Putnam County rated them higher.

0 10 20 30 40 50

NFL TV spots

Other TV spots

Print

Radio

E-mail

Video/Film


Figure 14. United Way advertising awareness in specific media is illustrated by responses to video and film, e-mail, radio, print, other TV spots, and NFL TV spots. National and Putnam County responses are reported.


67

Question 37 asked participants: Do you associate United Way with any of the

following community issues? Putnam County responses were seniors, 53% (56); early childhood

development (birth to six), 43% (45); affordable housing and homelessness, 24% (25); health

care, 30% (32); domestic violence, 40% (42); children and youth (school age seven to eighteen),

58% (61); families, 61% (64); civic involvement, 28% (29); safety, 16% (17); economic self-

sufficiency, 16% (17); none of the above, 3% (3); and do not know what United Way does, 6%

(6). Nationally those numbers were seniors, 46%; early childhood development (birth to six),

45%; affordable housing and homelessness, 38%; health care, 34%; domestic violence, 31%;

children and youth (school age seven to eighteen), 46%; families, 38%; civic involvement, 31%;

safety, 25%; economic self-sufficiency 23%; and none of the above, 24%. Nationally, the

community issues that scored higher were “economic self-sufficiency,” “safety,” and “affordable

housing and homelessness.” In Putnam County, those issues scoring higher were “domestic

violence,” “families,” “children and youth,” and “seniors.” Several issues scored very close

including “civic involvement,” “healthcare,” and “early childhood development.” Figure 15

shows the community issues respondents associated with United Way:


68

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Seniors

Children/Youth

Early ChildhoodDevelopment

Families

AffordableHousing/Homelessness

Healthcare

Domestic Violence

Civic Involvement

Safety

Economic Self-Sufficiency


Crosstabulations of data were conducted on the income of survey participants and their

responses to “United Way is an organization that lets me know what is being accomplished with

my contributions,” educational levels were compared to “United Way is an organization that gets

visible results in my community,” and age levels were evaluated with the statement, “United

Figure 15. Community issues associated with United Way are measured by responses to economic self-sufficiency, safety, civic involvement, domestic violence, healthcare, affordable house/homeslesness, families, early childhood development, children/youth, and seniors. National and Putnam County responses are reported.


69

Way is an organization that enables me to make the greatest difference in improving my

community.” The information is presented in Tables 16, 17, and 18.

The survey question asked respondents to consider the statement: United Way is an

organization that lets me know what is being accomplished with my contributions and then

respond by marking “strongly agree,” “somewhat agree,” “neither agree nor disagree,”

“somewhat disagree,” “strongly disagree,” or “don’t know.” When the data was crosstabulated

using income as a variable, it showed those in higher income brackets were more inclined to

agree with the statement. Of the total survey respondents, 38.5% choose “strongly agree,” and

51% of those indicated they made $50,000 but less than $100,000 per year and 24% stated they

made $100,000 but less than $150,000 per year. Over 27% of participants choose “somewhat

agree,” and 62% of those who stated they made $50,000 but less than $100,000 per year, and

15% made $100,000 but less than $150,000 per year. “Neither agree nor disagree,” was chosen

9.4% of the time with nearly 78% making $50,000 but less than $100,000. Over 3% chose

“somewhat disagree,” and 1% chose “strongly disagree.” Twenty-one percent stated they did not

know. Of the total responses, 19.8% chose “strongly agree” and made $50,000 but less than

$100,000; 16.7% chose “somewhat agree” and made $50,000 but less than $100,000; 10.4%

chose “don’t know” and made $50,000 but less than $100,000; and 9.4% chose “strongly agree”

and made $100,000 but less than $150,000.


70

Table 16. Crosstabulation: UW is an Organization that Lets Me Know What is Being Accomplished with My Contributions and Income

Income $15,000 but less

than $25,000

$25,000 but less

than $50,000

$50,000 but less

than $100,000

$100,000 but less

than $150,000

$150,000 or more

Refused Total

Count 0 3 19 9 1 5 37Expected Count 1.2 3.1 20.8 5.0 1.5 5.4 37.0

% within UW is an Organization that Lets Me Know What is Being Accomplished with My Contributions

.0% 8.1% 51.4% 24.3% 2.7% 13.5% 100.0%

% within Income .0% 37.5% 35.2% 69.2% 25.0% 35.7% 38.5%

Strongly agree

% of Total .0% 3.1% 19.8% 9.4% 1.0% 5.2% 38.5%Count 2 2 16 4 0 2 26Expected Count .8 2.2 14.6 3.5 1.1 3.8 26.0


7.7% 7.7% 61.5% 15.4% .0% 7.7% 100.0%

% within Income 66.7% 25.0% 29.6% 30.8% .0% 14.3% 27.1%

Somewhat agree

% of Total 2.1% 2.1% 16.7% 4.2% .0% 2.1% 27.1%Count 0 2 7 0 0 0 9

UW is an Organization that Lets Me Know What is Being Accomplished with My Contributions

Neither agree nor disagree

Expected Count .3 .8 5.1 1.2 .4 1.3 9.0


71


.0% 22.2% 77.8% .0% .0% .0% 100.0%

% within Income .0% 25.0% 13.0% .0% .0% .0% 9.4%

% of Total .0% 2.1% 7.3% .0% .0% .0% 9.4%Count 0 0 2 0 1 0 3Expected Count .1 .3 1.7 .4 .1 .4 3.0


.0% .0% 66.7% .0% 33.3% .0% 100.0%

% within Income .0% .0% 3.7% .0% 25.0% .0% 3.1%

Somewhat disagree

% of Total .0% .0% 2.1% .0% 1.0% .0% 3.1%Count 0 0 0 0 0 1 1Expected Count .0 .1 .6 .1 .0 .1 1.0


.0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% 100.0%

Strongly disagree

% within Income .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 7.1% 1.0%

Table 16. Crosstabulation: UW is an Organization that Lets Me Know What is Being Accomplished with My Contributions and Income, continued


72

% of Total .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 1.0% 1.0%

Count 1 1 10 0 2 6 20Expected Count .6 1.7 11.3 2.7 .8 2.9 20.0


5.0% 5.0% 50.0% .0% 10.0% 30.0% 100.0%

% within Income 33.3% 12.5% 18.5% .0% 50.0% 42.9% 20.8%

Don't Know

% of Total 1.0% 1.0% 10.4% .0% 2.1% 6.3% 20.8%Count 3 8 54 13 4 14 96Expected Count 3.0 8.0 54.0 13.0 4.0 14.0 96.0


3.1% 8.3% 56.3% 13.5% 4.2% 14.6% 100.0%

% within Income 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Total

% of Total 3.1% 8.3% 56.3% 13.5% 4.2% 14.6% 100.0%

Table 16. Crosstabulation: UW is an Organization that Lets Me Know What is Being Accomplished with My Contributions and Income, continued


73

Another question asked participants to consider the statement: United Way is an

organization that gets visible results in my community and then respond by marking “strongly

agree,” “somewhat agree,” “neither agree nor disagree,” “somewhat disagree,” “strongly

disagree,” or “don’t know.” The data was crosstabulated using education as a variable. Of the

total survey respondents, 34.4% choose “strongly agree,” and 52% of those were college

graduates. Nearly 37% of participants choose “somewhat agree,” and 37% were college

graduates and another 37% were graduate school or higher. “Neither agree nor disagree,” was

chosen 9.4% of the time with over 33% stating they were college graduates. One percent of

respondents chose “strongly disagree,” and 19% selected “don’t know.” Of the total respondents,

17.7% chose “strongly agree” and were college graduates, 13.5% chose “somewhat agree” and

were college graduates, 13.5% chose “somewhat agree” and were graduate school or higher, and

10.4% chose “don’t know” and were college graduates.

Table 17. Crosstabulation: UW is an Organization that Gets Visible Results and Education

Education

High School

Some College

College Graduate

Graduate School or

Higher Total

Count 2 7 17 7 33Expected Count 4.1 4.8 15.1 8.9 33.0% within UW is an Organization that Gets Visible Results

6.1% 21.2% 51.5% 21.2% 100.0%

% within Education 16.7% 50.0% 38.6% 26.9% 34.4%

Strongly agree

% of Total 2.1% 7.3% 17.7% 7.3% 34.4%Count 5 4 13 13 35

UW is an Organization that Gets Visible Results

Somewhat agree Expected Count 4.4 5.1 16.0 9.5 35.0


74

% within UW is an Organization that Gets Visible Results

14.3% 11.4% 37.1% 37.1% 100.0%

% within Education 41.7% 28.6% 29.5% 50.0% 36.5%% of Total 5.2% 4.2% 13.5% 13.5% 36.5%Count 4 1 3 1 9Expected Count 1.1 1.3 4.1 2.4 9.0% within UW is an Organization that Gets Visible Results

44.4% 11.1% 33.3% 11.1% 100.0%



% of Total 4.2% 1.0% 3.1% 1.0% 9.4%Count 0 0 1 0 1Expected Count .1 .1 .5 .3 1.0% within UW is an Organization that Gets Visible Results

.0% .0% 100.0% .0% 100.0%

% within Education .0% .0% 2.3% .0% 1.0%

Strongly disagree

% of Total .0% .0% 1.0% .0% 1.0%Count 1 2 10 5 18Expected Count 2.3 2.6 8.3 4.9 18.0% within UW is an Organization that Gets Visible Results

5.6% 11.1% 55.6% 27.8% 100.0%


Don't Know

% of Total 1.0% 2.1% 10.4% 5.2% 18.8%Count 12 14 44 26 96Expected Count 12.0 14.0 44.0 26.0 96.0% within UW is an Organization that Gets Visible Results

12.5% 14.6% 45.8% 27.1% 100.0%


Total

% of Total 12.5% 14.6% 45.8% 27.1% 100.0%

Participants were asked to evaluate the statement: United Way is an organization that

enables me to make the greatest difference in improving my community and to respond by

Table 17. Crosstabulation: UW is an Organization that Gets Visible Results and Education, continued


75

marking “strongly agree,” “somewhat agree,” “neither agree nor disagree,” “somewhat

disagree,” “strongly disagree,” or “don’t know.” The results were crosstabulated using age as a

variable. Of the total survey respondents, 29.2% choose “strongly agree,” and 57% of those were

ages 35 to 54. Over 27% of participants choose “somewhat agree,” and 77% were ages 35 to 54.

“Neither agree nor disagree,” was chosen 16.7% of the time with 44% ages 35 to 54 and another

44% ages 55 and older. Over 7% of respondents chose “somewhat disagree,” and 43% were ages

35 to 54 and another 43% were 55 and older. Almost 20% selected “don’t know,” and 42% of

them were ages 35 to 54. Of the total respondents, 20.8% chose “somewhat agree” and were 35

to 54, 16.7% chose “strongly agree” and were 35 to 54, and 8.3% chose “don’t know” and were

35 to 54.

Table 18. Crosstabulation: UW is an Organization that Enables Me to Make the Greatest Difference in Improving My Community and Age

Age

18 to 26

27 to 34

35 to 54

55 and older

Total

Count 1 5 16 6 28Expected Count 1.5 3.8 15.8 7.0 28.0% within UW is an Organization that Enables Me to Make the Greatest Difference in Improving my Community

3.6% 17.9% 57.1% 21.4% 100.0%

% within Age 20.0% 38.5% 29.6% 25.0% 29.2%

Strongly agree

% of Total 1.0% 5.2% 16.7% 6.3% 29.2%

Count 1 2 20 3 26

UW is an Organization that Enables Me to Make the Greatest Difference in Improving my Community

Expected Count 1.4 3.5 14.6 6.5 26.0


76

% within UW is an Organization that Enables Me to Make the Greatest Difference in Improving my Community

3.8% 7.7% 76.9% 11.5% 100.0%

% within Age 20.0% 15.4% 37.0% 12.5% 27.1%

Somewhat agree

% of Total 1.0% 2.1% 20.8% 3.1% 27.1%

Count 1 1 7 7 16Expected Count .8 2.2 9.0 4.0 16.0% within UW is an Organization that Enables Me to Make the Greatest Difference in Improving my Community

6.3% 6.3% 43.8% 43.8% 100.0%

% within Age 20.0% 7.7% 13.0% 29.2% 16.7%


% of Total 1.0% 1.0% 7.3% 7.3% 16.7%Count 0 1 3 3 7Expected Count .4 .9 3.9 1.8 7.0% within UW is an Organization that Enables Me to Make the Greatest Difference in Improving my Community

.0% 14.3% 42.9% 42.9% 100.0%

% within Age .0% 7.7% 5.6% 12.5% 7.3%

Somewhat disagree

% of Total .0% 1.0% 3.1% 3.1% 7.3%Count 2 4 8 5 19Expected Count 1.0 2.6 10.7 4.8 19.0% within UW is an Organization that Enables Me to Make the Greatest Difference in Improving my Community

10.5% 21.1% 42.1% 26.3% 100.0%

% within Age 40.0% 30.8% 14.8% 20.8% 19.8%

Don't Know

% of Total 2.1% 4.2% 8.3% 5.2% 19.8%

Count 5 13 54 24 96 Expected Count 5.0 13.0 54.0 24.0 96.0


77

% within UW is an Organization that Enables Me to Make the Greatest Difference in Improving my Community

5.2% 13.5% 56.3% 25.0% 100.0%

% within Age 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%% of Total 5.2% 13.5% 56.3% 25.0% 100.0%

In Chapter Four the analysis of data collected from 104 Putnam County surveys was

presented and evaluated along with the national survey done by United Way of America. Putnam

County’s replicated study shows how respondents in the county compare to the survey findings

of the national United Way. Chapter Five will offer conclusions and recommendations based on

the data analysis.

CHAPTER 5. SUMMARY, RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary

In today’s business setting, brand management is a crucial element. Organizations must

be able to determine their brand’s value in the marketplace by assessing the brand’s performance

to see if it is realizing its full potential. United Way of America has witnessed the erosion of its

brand, and the organization began a massive effort to strengthen its brand image predominantly

in the area of differentiation. Local United Ways were called upon to assist with this

repositioning, also. The strategies employed were:

1. Promote increased awareness of United Way’s core purpose and mission

2. Guide cohesive action across the United Way system, delivering a consistent

experience to donors

3. Drive accelerated growth among target donors

4. Ensure long-term vitality, preference and differentiation

This study examined United Way of America’s efforts to value its decades-old brand and

what it has done to reposition itself in the philanthropic marketplace. UWA has utilized different

research methods to measure its brand’s equity including Young and Rubicam’s Brand Asset

Valuator, research conducted by Interbrand, and an annual survey tool to measure the public’s

perception of United Way. This study replicated the national survey performed by UWA at

United Way of Putnam County in order to determine the study’s applicability at the local level.

The purpose of replicating United Way of America’s national annual survey was to

determine if its research findings were relevant to Putnam County Ohio. Are the findings done

on the national scale actually transferable to small town America? The research question


79

addressed in this study was: Do the results of the survey being replicated by United Way of

Putnam County mirror the findings of United Way of America’s national survey? Understanding

how United Way’s brand is viewed by donors and potential donors will allow United Way to

strengthen its brand image and gain a strong foothold in the philanthropic marketplace.

According to Kristin Thomsen, Manager of Market Research at United Way of America, “We

use the public opinion poll results to define our brand in the public’s eye. We need to know how

our brand is perceived compared to our competitors, and what it means to the public and to the

donor. We test brand attributes, brand promises, and several brand metrics (such as trust,

favorability, satisfaction, etc.) which give us an idea of how UW is doing in terms of

differentiating itself from others, reaching donors with its advertising and campaign, and

relationship building” (personal communication, February 7, 2005). This is an urgent matter to

United Way as it faces enormous growth in the non-profit sector and the public fails to

distinguish the organization from other non-profits. These factors are felt nationwide in each of

the 1,400 local United Ways, which struggle to keep up with what is happening.

The research that was replicated was a quantitative study consisting of a 65-question

survey. The survey is done on an annual basis by the United Way of America and is conducted

through telephone interviews with 1,500 adults nationwide.

Results and Conclusions

The replicated study was conducted on-line and had 105 participants. The demographic

makeup of those participants were 75% female, while nationally females accounted for 50% of

respondents. Most were ages 35 to 54 (61%), and nationally the age group was also the largest

with 41%. The educational level reported was 51% for college graduates; nationally, 53% were


80

college graduates. Nearly 74% worked full time; UWA’s survey results stated 44% worked full

time. The national survey had a large number of retirees taking part in the research, also. At

UWPC, 87% were married and 11% were single, and nationally, 23% were married and 56%

were single. Homeownership for UWPC was 94% and 74% in the national survey. Those with

home e- mail accounts were 69% at UWPC and 48% for the national study. Income was reported

in Putnam County as 56% for $50,000 to $100,000 and 13% for $100,000 and over; nationally,

the income was 14% below $15,000, 30% for $25,000 to $50,000, and 29% for $50,000 to

$100,000.

The demographic makeup of Putnam County in relation to the information reported

above is as follows:

1. Female: 51%

2. Ages 35 to 54: 38% of population

3. College graduate: Associate degree, 9.5%; bachelor’s degree, 9%; 3.9% graduate

school

4. Marital status: Married, 63%

5. Homeownership: Own, 84%

Those responding to the survey in Putnam County report much higher numbers in those

who are married, home ownership, income, educational attainment, and those who are female.

Respondents were likely to be college-educated females, married with high incomes, own their

own homes, and work full time. In addition, Putnam County is a very rural county in Northwest

Ohio, and the numbers of those indicating a home e-mail account are probably much higher than

the demographics of the county would indicate.


81

Those taking part in the survey fit the profile of the active community investor United

Way of America is aggressively targeting in its advertising and fundraising campaigns. National

research shows the demographics of this target audience to be 18% of the population (35 million

Americans), between the ages of 35 and 54 (52%), married (67%), have children (58%), college

educated (64%), own their own homes (81%), and have an average household income of $86,800

(Round, 2003).

Other research areas important to the branding study are confidence in charities,

donations made to particular charities in the past 12 months, trust in charities, recognition of

United Way, overall opinion of United Way, brand promises of United Way, key attributes of

United Way, and satisfaction with United Way. Those surveyed in Putnam County had a

substantially higher confidence rate in United Way than those on the national level. ARC also

came out well, but not as significantly as United Way. Salvation Army nearly mirrored the

national numbers. Confidence in charities was reported as:

1. Confidence in United Way: Putnam County, 95%; nationally, 81%

2. Confidence in American Red Cross: Putnam County, 94%, nationally, 88%

3. Confidence in Salvation Army: Putnam County, 87%; nationally, 89%

Giving to charitable organizations in the past 12 months was significant to United Way.

Nearly 70% stated they had given to UWPC a considerably higher number than gives nationally.

This is nearly the same as those giving to churches and other religious organizations. This

information is important because donors and potential donors can talk about trust and confidence


82

in more abstract terms; however, the actual donation is what counts in the end. The data is

outlined below:

1. United Way: Putnam County, 70%; nationally, 15%

2. Churches: Putnam County, 68%; nationally, 13%

3. American Red Cross: Putnam County, 45%; nationally, 11%

4. Salvation Army: Putnam County, 18%; nationally 20%

When participants were asked if they trust charities in general to do what they say they

will do with funds, Putnam County responded yes (38%); nationally, it was 51%. Putnam County

trusts some but not others (59%); nationally, it is 34%. Trust in particular charities scores much

higher in Putnam County than charities in general. United Way has a significantly higher number

than the national United Way, and it also scores higher than ARC and Salvation Army.

1. United Way: Putnam County, 95%; nationally 75%

2. American Red Cross: Putnam County, 82%; nationally, 88%

3. Salvation Army: Putnam County, 65%; nationally, 91%

Recognition of United Way by Putnam County was nearly the same as the national

survey with 98% indicating they had hard of United Way, and 93% saying the same nationally.

The overall opinion of United Way measuring very favorable and somewhat favorable rated a

95% in Putnam County and a 76% nationally.

With measuring the importance of brand promises, each of the following questions were

evaluated:

1. An organization lets me know what is being accomplished with my contributions

2. An organization gets visible results in my community


83

3. An organization brings our community together to focus on solutions for the most

pressing community problems

4. An organization makes sure the money I give is well spent

5. An organization enables me to make the greatest difference in improving my

community

6. An organization energizes and inspires people to get involved in our community

Nationally, the numbers were higher for each question. When measuring the agreement with

these brand promises, the responses were flipped, and Putnam County respondents agreed more

strongly for each statement than those taking the national survey.

Key attribute measures for both surveys were reported as follows:

1. Innovative: Putnam County, 59%; nationally, 56%

2. Trustworthy: Putnam County, 80%; nationally, 66%

3. Results Oriented: Putnam County, 70%; nationally, 62%

4. Arrogant: Putnam County, 12%; nationally, 22%

5. Collaborative: Putnam County, 67%; nationally, 57%

6. Influential: Putnam County, 62%; nationally, 67%

7. Personal: Putnam County, 47%; nationally, 48%

Putnam County residents saw United Way as more trustworthy, results oriented, and

collaborative and less arrogant than their national counterparts. Innovative, influential, and

personal all received very similar rankings.

Satisfaction with United Way at the local level was 85% for very and somewhat

satisfied. The national survey scored 71% for very and somewhat satisfied with United Way.


84

Another important measure is the likelihood of giving to United Way in the future.

There is a considerable difference in the scores for this particular question. Nationally, over 30%

of respondents are very unlikely to give to United Way in the future, while less than 10%

reported this for Putnam County. Those very likely to give in Putnam County were nearly 70%,

and those very likely to give nationally were 25%, a very significant difference in the surveys.

Survey participants in Putnam County were likely to

1. Have high confidence in United Way

2. Have given to United Way in the past 12 months

3. Trust United Way to do what it says it will do with donations

4. Trust American Red Cross and Salvation Army, but not as much as United Way

5. Have high recognition of United Way

6. Agree with key United Way brand attributes

7. Have high satisfaction of United Way

8. Give to United Way in the future

Recommendations

Information gathered in the survey will be valuable to Putnam County United Way and

will enable them to target the active community investor the national United Way is targeting.

This group will help strengthen United Way fundraising efforts in the county. It will also warrant

further research as Putnam County tries to identity such marketing issues as the types of

advertising that reaches the segment, what issues are important to them, how they prefer to give,

and how involved they want to be in United Way.


85

Additional research efforts should include focus groups in an effort to triangulate the

research findings. The use of mixed methodologies, combining quantitative and qualitative

research, makes the studies more viable. Focus groups would also be valuable in getting to know

the active community investor segment.

Some possible research areas to address with focus groups and future surveys would

include:

1. Trust in Putnam County’s United Way is extremely high at 95%; however, giving

does not reflect this number. UWPC respondents also consider it to be results oriented

and collaborative; respondents rated UWPC highly in those areas as well. However,

giving does not indicate this. While 70% of respondents stated they have given, the

past campaigns do not reflect the trust numbers. Donors may be giving, but at much

lower levels. How is this so if so many view UWPC as a highly trusted organization?

Research into how much the county is able to give and how much is actually given

should be conducted. Other important questions to ask would be what other

fundraising campaigns are going on such as a major building project by a large local

church or a YMCA building campaign, what is the disposable income within the

county, and what are the taxes for the county (property, income, and city).

2. Nearly 70% of respondents stated they had given to UWPC in the last 12 months.

This mirrors their giving to churches. More insight into the amounts of the donations

must be obtained in order to accurately gauge this. Many United Ways and companies

trying to raise money for them do small fundraisers and other events during the year

in which people give a relatively small amount of money (possibly car raffles or car


86

washes). These small donations may be what they consider “giving to United Way in

the past 12 months.” The focus group should investigate how much is given or if

participants consider giving to these types of fundraisers as their annual donation to

United Way.

3. Is UWPC dealing with the social service issues Putnam County residents see as

important? The survey questioned respondents if they associated United Way with

community issues such as economic self-sufficiency, safety, civic involvement,

domestic violence, healthcare, affordable house/homeslesness, families, early

childhood development, children/youth, and seniors. Perhaps the county would like to

see its focus narrowed or would like UWPC to look at entirely different social issues.

This important question was not addressed in the national survey. Donors give to

those non-profits addressing areas they perceive to be important.

4. Are the key attributes measured by United Way of America, innovative, trustworthy,

results oriented, arrogant, collaborative, influential, and personal, actually the

attributes Putnam County finds to be of importance and would like its local United

Way to possess?

5. As discussed earlier in the study, those social service agencies that have been

receiving United Way funds have been pressed to do fundraising on their own

because of poor local campaigns. Putnam County residents are asked to give to

United Way and to the agencies United Way supports by different fundraising efforts.

Some donors consider this to be “double-dipping.” The question to be investigated


87

here is “Does your gift to United Way funded agencies negate your gift to United

Way or does it lesson your gift to United Way?

6. Those responding to the county survey seemed to mirror the active community

investor United Way is targeting with its fundraising efforts. A focus group should be

conducted to help support survey findings from this market segment, which was

identified in the UWPC survey. The active community investor within Putnam

County must be gauged to see if it is willing and able to give at least at a $500 level

during the annual UWPC campaign. It must also be determined if this group would be

willing to work as strong supporters of UWPC by helping to conduct their own

workplace campaigns, urging others to give, and serving on boards and committees

for UWPC. They must be willing to help strengthen United Way’s influence and

direction within the Putnam County.

Further research by Putnam County’s United Way is urgently needed. United Way

continues to face enormous growth in the non-profit sector, and this trend does not seem to be

letting up at all. Donors now have numerous options for giving thanks to the competitiveness of

the non-profit sector, and donor dollars are being stretched to the limit as large numbers of non-

profits vie for them. Wages in the U.S. are not growing as in the past, and workplace campaigns

for United Way are beginning to wane which makes fundraising efforts all the more difficult.

UWPC faces the tough task of differentiating itself in the marketplace as it has for the past

several years. UWPC must continue its efforts at research to find out what the giving public is

looking for in its support of non-profits, how it can align itself with potential donors and social


88

service agencies doing “what matters” in the community, and how it can engage the active

community investor.

REFERENCES

Aaker, D.A. (1991). Managing brand equity: Capitalizing on the value of a brand name. New York, NY: The Free Press.

Arnold, D. (1992). The handbook of brand management. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley

Publishing Company. Athens, D. Returning to brand relevance. Retrieved February 27, 2004, from

http://www.marketingpower.com/live/content-printer friendly.php?&Item_ID=17267.

Babbie, E. (1989). The practice of social research 5th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Biolos, J. (1997). Why focus is vital and how to achieve it. Harvard Management Update.

Blumenthal, D. (2001). It's the people stupid! Why branding fails to inspire loyalty--and what you can do about it. Retrieved December 26, 2002, from http://www.allaboutbranding.com/printhis.lasso?print=280.

Boone, L.E. & Kurtz, D.L. (1999). Contemporary marketing. Forth Worth, TX: The Dryden Press.

Brand Asset Valuator. (2001). Young and Rubicam Web Site. Retrieved February 27, 2004, from

http://www.youngandrubicam.com/knowledge/bag2.php.

Clancy, K.J. (2002). Save America’s dying brands. Marketing Management. Retrieved February 27, 2004, from http://www.marketingpower.com/live/content-printer-friendly.php?&Item_ID=16101.

Cooper, D.R. & Schindler, P.S. (2001). Business research methods. Boston, MA: McGraw- Hill.

Creative Research Systems. (2003). Sample size formulas. Retrieved March 13, 2005, from http://www.surveysystem.com/ssformu.htm.

Duffy, N. (2003). Passion branding: Harnessing the power of emotion to build strong brands.

Hobeken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons. Dunn, M. Branding overview. Retrieved December 25, 2002, from

http://www.marketingpower.com/live/content-printer-friendly.php?&Item_ID=1003.

Foxall, G.R., Goldsmith, R. E., & Brown, S. (1998). Consumer Psychology for Marketing. (2nd ed.). London: International Thomson Business Press.


90

Gobe, M. (2001). Emotional branding: The new paradigm for connecting brands to people. New York, NY: Allworth Press.

Hatch, M., & Schultz, M. (2001). Are the strategic stars aligned for your corporate brand?

Harvard Business Review.

Hoovers Web Site. Retrieved February 18, 2006, from http://www.hovers.com.

Inside Young and Rubicam. (2001). Young and Rubicam Web Site. Retrieved February 27, 2004, from http://www.youngandrubicam.com/inside/index2.php.

Keller, K.L. (1998). Strategic brand management: Building, measuring, and managing brand

equity. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Keller, K. L., Sternthal, B., & Tybout, A. (2002). Three questions you need to ask about your

brand. Harvard Business Review.

Kotler, P. & Armstrong, G. (1997). Marketing: An introduction 4th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Marconi, J. (2000). The brand marketing book. Chicago, IL: NTC Business Books. McFarland, J. (2002). Branding from the inside out, and from the outside in. Harvard

Management Update. Mercer Management Consulting. (2002). Brand portfolio economics: Harnessing a group of

brands to drive profitable growth. Neuliep, J.W. (1991). Replication research in the social sciences. Newbury Park, CA: Sage

Publications.

Peppers, D., Rogers, M., & Dorf. B. (1999). One to one field book: The complete toolkit for implementing a one to one marketing program. New York, NY: Doubleday.

Perseus Development Corporation. (2004). Perseus survey 101: A complete guide to a successful survey. Retrieved May 2, 2005 from http://www.perseus.com/express/index.html.

Polk Automotive Intelligence. (2005). Research sampling: Demographics. Retrieved April 19, 2005, from http://www.polk.com/products/res__sampl_demographic.asp.

Ricci, R. & Volkmann, J. (2003). Momentum: How companies become unstoppable forces.

Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.


91

Round. (2003, January 30). United Way Branding Webinair.

Schultz, D.E. (2002). Mastering brand metrics. Marketing Management. Retrieved February 27, 2004, from http://www.marketingpower.com/live/content-printer-friendly.php?&Item_ID=16082.

Shatrujeet, N. (2003). Rediffusion launches Y and R’s Brand Asset Valuator in India. 2003

Agency Faqs. Retrieved February 27, 2004, from http://www.agencyfaqs.com/news/stories/2003/11/27/7727.html.

Sherrington, M. (2003). Added value: The alchemy of brand-led growth. New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan.

StatSoft Inc. (1984). Electronic textbook. Retrieved May 3, 2005, from

http://www.statsoft.com/textbook/stathome.html. Understanding brand equity. Retrieved December 25, 2002, from

http://www.dssresearch.com/library/BrandEquity/understanding.asp.

United Way Brand Guide. (2001). The 21st Century United Way: The brand new United Way. Alexandria, VA.: United Way of America.

United Way of America. (2002, June). Young and Rubicam’s research shows the United Way

brand has bounced back from the recession. Research Insights. Alexandria, VA: United Way of America.

United Way of America. (2003, July). New charitable giving trends create a difficult environment for United Ways, research finds. Research Insights. Alexandria, VA: United Way of America.

United Way of America (2004, June). Research seminar: Trends in philanthropy and the

economy. Alexandria, VA: United Way of America.

United Way of America Research. (2004, December). 2004 national public opinion poll. Alexandria, VA: United Way of America.

United Way Web Site. Retrieved January 15, 2003, from http://www.unitedway.org. U.S. Census Bureau. State and county quick facts: Putnam County. Retrieved March 13,

2005, from http://www.quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/39/39039.

U.S. Census Bureau. Putnam County, Ohio. DP-2: Profile of selected social characteristics. Retrieved February 23, 2006, from http://factfinder.census.gov/.


92

U.S. Census Bureau. Putnam County, Ohio. DP-3: Profile of selected economic characteristics. Retrieved February 23, 2006, from http://factfinder.census.gov/.

Van Auken, B. (2001). The fifteen most important things to know about building winning

brands. Retrieved December 26, 2002, from http://www.allaboutbranding.com/printhis.lasso?print=268.

What is Brand Asset Valuator? (2001). Young and Rubicam Web Site. Retrieved February 27, 2004, from http://www.youngandrubicam.com/knowledge/what2.php.

Young and Rubicam, Inc. (2003). BAV: Brand Asset Valuator. Young and Rubicam Group.

New York, NY: Young and Rubicam.


93

APPENDIX A UNITED WAY OF AMERICA NATIONAL SURVEY

Hello, my name is __________. I’m calling from Delta Market Research, a national research firm. We are conducting a study on attitudes toward charitable organizations and community involvement and we would like to include your opinions. We are NOT asking for donations. S1. First are you 18 years of age or older?

_____Yes _____No ASK TO SPEAK WITH SOMEONE 18 OR OLDER _____Refused ASK TO SPEAK WITH SOMEONE 18 OR OLDER

ONLY FOR AFFLUENT AUGMENT S2. Which of the following best describes your household’s total annual income before taxes? (READ LIST)

1. Under $100,000 2. $100,000 but less than $150,000 3. $150,000 or more 4. Don’t know (DO NOT READ) 5. Refused (DO NOT READ)

1. When you think about non-profit or charitable organizations that make a difference in the community, which organizations come to mind? (PROBE) Any others? (DO NOT READ LIST. ENTER MULTIPLE RESPONSES.) 2A. How much confidence do you have in charitable organizations in general to do a good job? Do you have…. (READ LIST AND CHECK ONLY ONE)?

4. A great deal 3. A fair amount 2. Not too much 1. None at all

5. Don’t know (DO NOT READ)

2B. How much confidence do you have in United Way to do a good job? Do you have….(READ LIST AND CHECK ONLY ONE)?

4. A great deal 3. A fair amount 2. Not too much 1. None at all 5. Don’t know (DO NOT READ)


94

2C. How much confidence do you have in the Salvation Army to do a good job? Do you have….(READ LIST AND CHECK ONLY ONE)?


2D. How much confidence to you have in the American Red Cross to do a good job? Do you have….(READ LIST AND CHECK ONLY ONE)?


3A. To which non-profit or charitable organizations have you contributed money in the past 12 month? (PROBE) Any others? (DO NOT READ LIST. ACCEPT MULTIPLE RESPONSES)

1. American Cancer Society 2. American Diabetes Association 3. American Heart Association/Heart Fund 4. American Lung Society 5. American Red Cross 6. Animal shelters (general) 7. Arts 8. Big Brothers/Big Sisters 9. Boys and Girls Clubs 10. Boy Scouts 11. Camp Fire Boys and Girls 12. Cancer (general) 13. Children (general) 14. Children’s fund 15. Church/synagogue/religious organization (SPECIFY) 16. Civil Rights 17. Community centers (general) 18. Community fire/police/rescue (general) 19. Cultural 20. Disability 21. Disabled veterans


95

22. Disaster relief 23. Education (miscellaneous) 24. Elderly/Aging 25. Environmental organizations 26. Family Planning/Parenting 27. Girl Scouts 28. Goodwill Industries of America 29. Healthcare organizations 30. Homeless charities/missions (general) 31. Humane Society 32. MADD/Mothers Against Drunk Driving 33. Make a Wish Foundation 34. March of Dimes 35. Muscular Dystrophy Association 36. National Easter Seal Society 37. National Wildlife/Wildlife organizations 38. Political/Advocacy organizations 39. Religious charities (general) 40. St. Jude’s/St. Jude’s Research/Children’s Hospital 41. Salvation Army 42. School/university alumni (general) 43. Shriners 44. Special Olympics 45. Sports/Recreational 46. United Way 47. Veterans (general) 48. Visiting Nurse Association 49. Volunteers of America 50. Youth (miscellaneous) 51. YMCA 52. YWCA 53. Other (SPECIFY) 54. None 55. Don’t know 56. Refused


96

ASK IF CHARITY IS MENTIONED IN Q3A 3B. Think about all the monetary contributions you made to charitable or non-profit organizations in the past 12 months, approximately what was the total that you gave or pledged to all charities? (ENTER AMOUNT IN DOLLARS. IF UNSURE, ENCOURAGE BEST GUESS.)

$__________ Don’t know Refused

3C. Have you ever donated to a charity via the Internet?

1. Yes 2. No 3. Don’t know

4. Do you personally investigate charities to which you donate money?


5. In general, do you trust charities to do what they say they will do with the donations?

1. Yes 2. No 3. I trust some charities but not others 4. Don’t know

6. Do you trust United Way to do what it says it will do with the donations?


7. Do you trust American Red Cross to do what it says it will do with the donations?



97

8. Do you trust Salvation Army to do what it says it will do with the donations?


COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT ISSUES 9. How much do you agree or disagree with the following statement, “I am actively involved in the community?” Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, neither agree nor disagree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree?

5. Strongly agree 4. Somewhat agree 3. Neither agree nor disagree 2. Somewhat disagree 1. Strongly disagree 6. Don’t know (DO NOT READ) 7. Refused (DO NOT READ)

10. Have you volunteered for any type of service in the past 12 months, including helping at your local church, serving on a neighborhood committee, or donating blood? By volunteer, I mean work to help others without monetary pay, not just belonging to an organization?


11. How important do you feel it is that people volunteer in the community? Do you feel it is (READ THE LIST AND CHECK ONE)?

5. Very important 4. Somewhat important 3. Neither important nor unimportant 2. Somewhat unimportant 1. Very unimportant



98

12. How many neighbors or colleagues could you really count on if you needed help, such as a ride to the hospital or to talk about a problem? (COUNT A HOUSEHOLD AS ONE)

__________ Enter number

1. Don’t work 2. Don’t know 3. Refused

13A. Have you heard of 2-1-1?

1. Yes CONTINUE 2. No SKIP TO Q13C 3. Don’t know SKIP TO Q13C

13B. To the best of your knowledge, is 2-1-1 available in your community?


13C. In the past year, have you needed to get information on how to find help for you or your family, such as information on daycare, emergency food or shelter, counseling, home healthcare, after school programs, etc?


NOW I AM GOING TO ASK YOU SOME SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ABOUT THE UNITED WAY AND SOME OTHER SELECT CHARITIES. 14. (TO BE ASKED ONLY IF UNITED WAY NOT MENTIONED IN 1A.) Have you heard of United Way?



99

15. Thinking about everything you know, what is your overall opinion of the United Way? Is it….(READ LIST)?

4. Very favorable 3. Somewhat favorable 2. Somewhat unfavorable 1. Very unfavorable 5. Don’t know (DO NOT READ) 6. Refused (DO NOT READ)

16. Have you heard of any of the following: (READ LIST AND CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)

1. United Way’s Success by Six 2. The United Way State of Caring 3. The United Way Draft 4. None (DO NOT READ)

17. Next, I’d like to read a series of statements, and I’d like for you to tell me how important each item is when deciding to contribute to or volunteer with a charitable organization. Please tell me whether the item is very important, somewhat important, neither important nor unimportant, somewhat unimportant, or very unimportant. (INSERT AND ROTATE) How important is it that….

A. An organization lets me know what is being accomplished with my contributions B. An organization gets visible results in my community C. An organization brings our community together to focus on solutions for the most pressing community problems D. An organization makes sure the money I give is well spent E. An organization enables me to make the greatest difference in improving my community F. An organization energizes and inspires people to get involved in our community




100

18. For the next series of statements that I read, I would like you to tell me how much you agree with the statement. Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, neither agree nor disagree, somewhat agree, strongly disagree….? (INSERT AND ROTATE)

A. United Way is an organization that lets me know what is being accomplished with my contributions B. United Way is an organization that gets visible results in my community C. United Way is an organization that brings our community together to focus on solutions for the most pressing community problems D. United Way is an organization that makes sure the money I give is well spent E. United Way is an organization that enables me to make the greatest difference in improving my community F. United Way is an organization that energizes and inspires people to get involved in our community

5. Strongly agree 4. Somewhat agree 3. Neither agree nor disagree 2. Somewhat disagree 1. Strongly disagree 6. Don’t know (DO NOT READ)

19. I’m going to read you a series of adjectives used to describe the United Way, the Salvation Army, and the American Red Cross, please tell me how much you agree or disagree with each adjective as it applies to each charity. Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, neither agree nor disagree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree with the adjectives? (ROTATE CHARITIES) United Way

A. Innovative B. Trustworthy C. Results oriented D. Arrogant E. Collaborative F. Influential G. Personal



101

Red Cross A. Innovative B. Trustworthy C. Results oriented D. Arrogant E. Collaborative F. Influential G. Personal


Salvation Army



20. Have you been asked to give money to United Way in the past 12 months?

1. Yes 2. No 3. Don’t know 4. Refused


102

21. Regardless of whether you have been asked, have you donated any money to United Way in the past 12 months?


22. Have you given to United Way prior to the last 12 months?


ASK IF Q21 IS YES

23. Approximately how much did you give to United Way in the past 12 months? (ENTER AMOUNT IN DOLLARS. IF UNSURE, ENCOURAGE BEST GUESS).

$__________ Don’t know Refused

ASK IF Q21 IS YES 24A. Thinking back on your contribution to United Way, what prompted you to make this donation? (DO NOT READ LIST. CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)

1. They asked me 2. Boss made me 3. Asked to donate at work 4. Tax benefit 5. Part of financial strategy 6. Acquisition of new wealth by myself or my family 7. An event associated with UW 8. News or media story 9. Response to a specific request (for example, a capital campaign) 10. Involvement of friend, family member, or co-worker with UW 11. Personal experience with UW 12. Family tradition 13. Business connection 14. Health (illness—family, friend, or personal)


103

15. Personal event 16. Atonement for past misdeeds 17. Feel strongly about the cause 18. Religion or spirituality 19. Moral imperative 20. Tithing 21. Other (SPECIFY) 22. Don’t know 23. Refused

ASK IF Q21 IS NO AND Q22 IS YES 24B. Why did you choose not to donate to United Way this year? (DO NOT READ LIST. CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)

1. Never asked/contacted 2. Didn’t receive any literature on it 3. Employer isn’t participating in campaign 4. No longer work for company sponsoring a campaign 5. Can’t afford to/no money 6. Retired 7. Unemployed 8. On a fixed income 9. Have had medical expenses/family members sick 10. Gave money to other charities 11. Like to pick own charity 12. Didn’t have time 13. Pressured to give makes me not give 14. Turned off by unfavorable news articles/bad press 15. Money scandal/crooks 16. Don’t like the charities/groups they give to 17. They did not help me/friend/family member 18. Not sure how much money actually goes to help people 19. Other (SPECIFY) 20. None/no reason 21. Don’t know 22. Refused

ASK IF Q21 IS NO AND Q22 IS NO 24C. Why have you never given to United Way? (DO NOT READ LIST. CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)

1. Never asked/contacted 2. Didn’t receive any literature on it 3. Employer isn’t participating in campaign


104

4. Not familiar with it 5. No UW office in my area 6. No longer work for company sponsoring a campaign 7. Can’t afford to/No money 8. Retired 9. Unemployed 10. On a fixed income 11. Have had medical expenses/family members sick 12. Gave money to other charities 13. Like to pick own charity 14. Didn’t have time 15. Pressured to give makes me not give 16. Turned off by unfavorable news articles/bad press 17. Money scandal/crooks 18. Don’t like the charities/groups they give to 19. They did not help me/friend/family member 20. Not sure how much money actually goes to help people 21. Like to have greater control over where the money goes 22. Give directly to organization/person in need 23. Other (SPECIFY) 24. None/no reason 25. Don’t know 26. Refused

ASK IF YES CHECKED IN Q21 25. Overall, how satisfied are you with your relationship with United Way? Are you very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, somewhat dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied?

5. Very satisfied 4. Somewhat satisfied 3. Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 2. Somewhat dissatisfied 1. Very dissatisfied 6. Don’t know (DO NOT READ)


105

ASK OF EVERYONE 26. How likely will you be to give to United Way in the future? Will you be….(READ LIST AND CHECK ONLY ONE)

4. Very likely 3. Somewhat likely 2. Somewhat unlikely 1. Very unlikely 5. Don’t know (DO NOT READ)

ASK IF Q21 IS YES 27. Were you thanked for your United Way contribution?

1. Yes CONTINUE 2. No SKIP TO Q29 3. Don’t know SKIP TO Q29 4. Refused SKIP TO Q29

28. Were you thanked by….(READ LIST AND MARK ALL THAT APPLY)

1. Your United Way 2. Your employer 3. The United Way agency(ies) to which your contribution was given

29. Once you made a contribution to United Way, how would you most like to be recognized for this donation? Would you like a….(READ LIST AND MARK ONLY ONE)?

1. Letter 2. Gift 3. Plaque/certificate 4. Invitation to a dinner/lunch or party 5. Mention in a newsletter or newspaper 6. Personal visit from United Way official 7. Other (SPECIFY) 8. Do not want recognition (DO NOT READ)

30. Do you recall receiving information from United Way about how your United Way contribution is being used?

1. Yes CONTINUE 2. No SKIP TO Q32 3. Don’t know SKIP TO Q32


106

31. As a result of the information you received from United Way, are you better informed about the results that are being achieved with your contribution?


32. In the past four months, have you seen, heard, or read any advertisements from the American Red Cross, the United Way, or the Salvation Army? (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)

1. American Red Cross 2. Salvation Army 3. United Way CONTINUE 4. Don’t know SKIP TO Q34 5. None SKIP TO Q34

33A. In the past four months, have you seen, heard, or read any advertisements for United Way? Such as….(READ LIST AND MARK ALL THAT APPLY. ROTATE LIST)

1. TV spots associated with the National Football League 2. Other TV spots featuring United Way 3. Ads in newspapers or magazines 4. Announcements on the radio 5. Electronic mail or electronic bulletin board 6. A video or film

ASK IF 1 IS CHECKED IN Q33A 33B. How do the UW/NFL ads make you feel about the NFL? (DO NOT READ LIST AND CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)

1. NFL players are silly/fun/good sports 2. NFL is a good corporate citizen 3. NFL cares about the community 4. NFL just needs good publicity/PR stunt 5. Other (SPECIFY) 6. Nothing 7. Don’t know


107

ASK IF 1 IS CHECKED IN Q33A 33C. How do the UW/NFL ads make you feel about United Way? (DO NOT READ LIST AND CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)

1. United Way helps people get involved in the community 2. UW pays football players to say good things about them 3. UW does cute commercials 4. Donor money should not go to pay for these ads 5. Other (SPECIFY) 6. Nothing 7. Don’t know

34. In the past year, have you seen or heard the phrase “What Matters” in (READ LIST AND CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)

1. In advertising for United Way 2. On United Way materials 3. On the United Way Web site 4. None of the above (DO NOT READ) 5. Don’t know (DO NOT READ)

35. Have you ever seen the UW/NFL Thanksgiving Day Half Time Show?


36. How would you rate United Way as a leader in community impact? Would you say that United Way is….(READ LIST)

5. Very effective 4. Somewhat effective 3. Neither effective nor ineffective 2. Somewhat ineffective 1. Very ineffective 6. Don’t know (DO NOT READ) 7. Refused (DO NOT READ)


108

37. Do you associate United Way with any of the following community issues? (READ LIST AND CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)

1. Seniors 2. Early childhood development (birth to six) 3. Affordable housing and homelessness 4. Health care 5. Domestic violence 6. Children and youth (school age seven to 18) 7. Families 8. Civic involvement 9. Safety 10. Economic self-sufficiency 11. None of the above (DO NOT READ) 12. Don’t know what United Way does (DO NOT READ)

38. Are you employed with a company that has a United Way fundraising campaign?


39. What is your overall opinion of the United Way campaign to raise money? (EMPHASIZE THE WORD “CAMPAIGN”)

4. Very favorable 3. Somewhat favorable 2. Somewhat unfavorable 1. Very unfavorable 5. Don’t know (DO NOT READ) 6. Refused (DO NOT READ)


109

40. Please give me your agreement level with the following statement. Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, neither agree nor disagree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree with the statement: My company’s support of United Way makes me feel good about my company.


41. Would you be more inclined to work for a company that supports United Way?

1. Yes 2. No 3. Irrelevant/I don’t think about it 4. Don’t know

42. Would you be more inclined to buy a product or service from a company that supports United Way?


43. Would you be more inclined to invest in a company that supports United Way?


44A. In the past 12 months, have you felt pressured to give to United Way?



110

44B. Did the pressure that you felt, cause you to want to…(READ LIST)?

1. Give more to United Way 2. Give less to United Way 3. Have no impact on you

DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONS 45. RECORD RESPONDENT’S GENDER (DO NOT READ)

1. Male 2. Female

46. Which of the following best describes your age? (READ LIST)

1. 18 to 26 2. 27 to 34 3. 35 to 54 4. 55 and older 5. Refused (DO NOT READ)

47. What is the highest of education you completed? (READ LIST)

1. High school 2. Some college 3. College graduate 4. Graduate school or higher (any) 5. Refused (DO NOT READ)

48. What is your current employment status? Are you employed….(READ LIST)?

1. Full time---Not self-employed CONTINUE 2. Part time---Not self-employed CONTINUE 3. Self-employed---Full time SKIP TO Q50 4. Self-employed---Part time SKIP TO Q50 5. Retired SKIP TO Q50 6. Not employed SKIP TO Q50 7. Refused (DO NOT READ) SKIP TO Q50


111

49. How many employees are at your place of employment? (READ LIST. IF UNSURE, ENCOURAGE BEST GUESS)

1. 1 to 50 2. 51 to 250 3. 251 to 999 4. 1000 or more 5. Don’t know (DO NOT READ) 6. Refused (DO NOT READ)

50. Are you a member of a labor union?


51. What is your marital status? (READ LIST)

1. Married 2. Single, never been married 3. Separated 4. Divorced 5. Widowed 6. Refused (DO NOT READ)

52A. Do you have children under the age of five living in your household?

1. Yes CONTINUE 2. No SKIP TO Q53


112

52B. As a parent or grandparent of a young child, do you do any of the following: (READ LIST AND CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)

A. Talk with your child in full sentences, such as “Yes that’s a big furry dog” B. Wake the child up by 7:00 a.m. every morning C. Praise your child by saying, “Good job” D. Hug or snuggle your child at least four times a day E. Use flash cards to teach math and letters F. Read to your child everyday and ask questions about the story G. Try teaching reading like they do in school H. Encourage your child by saying things such as, “You did that task all by yourself” I. Ask your children questions about what they see

1. Yes 2. No 3. No time 4. Didn’t know I needed to do this

53. Do you own your current place of residence?

1. Rent 2. Own 3. Refused

54. Do you have a home e-mail account on the Internet?

1. Yes 2. No 3. Don’t know/Refused

55. Did you itemize your deductions on your 2002 tax return?

1. Yes 2. No 3. Refused 4. Don’t remember


113

56. Which of the following best describes your household’s total annual income before taxes? (READ LIST)

1. Under $15,000 2. $15,000 but less than $25,000 3. $25,000 but less than $50,000 4. $50,000 but less than $100,000 5. $100,000 but less than $150,000 6. $150,000 or more 7. Don’t know (DO NOT READ) 8. Refused (DO NOT READ)

57. Which of the following statements best describes how charitable giving fits in with your estate planning? (READ LIST)

1. I have a will and have included contributions to charities in it 2. I have a will and have not included contributions to charities in it 3. I do not have a will 4. Don’t know (DO NOT READ) 5. Refused (DO NOT READ)

58. Would you consider United Way in your estate or will planning?


59. What ethnic group would you consider yourself to be?

1. White (Anglo-American) 2. Black (African-American) 3. Hispanic/Latin American 4. Asian-American 5. Native American 6. Mixed 7. Other (SPECIFY) 8. Refused (DO NOT READ)

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME


114

APPENDIX B UNITED WAY OF AMERICA NATIONAL SURVEY RESULTS

2004 National Public Opinion Poll

United Way of America ResearchDecember 2004

UWA Research: 2004 Public Opinion Poll 2

Key Findings

� Public Trust in Charities in General has improved.

� But United Way has not experienced significant improvements in its Public Trust numbers.

� United Way also experienced declines in its “Top of Mind Awareness” and “Effectiveness as a Leader in Community Impact” numbers.

� Just like Data Base I shows United Way’s continued reliance on the manufacturing sector, the Public Opinion Poll shows United Way’s continued reliance on the workplace campaign to generate good public perception numbers.


115


Key Findings

� Donor/Investors indicate that only less than ten percent are dissatisfied (very/somewhat) with United Way.

� There have been decreases in public support for United Way’s key messages.

� United Way/NFL ads are showing some very good results.


Methodology

• National random sample of general population over age 18

• Data collected: October 23-December 17, 2004

• 2,039 telephone interviews

• Conducted by Delta Market Research

• Margin of error at the 95% confidence level is + 2%

• Significant differences are noted with a circle throughout the presentation

• In the Detailed Findings, additional analysis is presented in the notes portion of the presentation

Community Impact Issues


116


46%

23%25%

31%

45%

38%

38%

34%

31%

46%

0% 15% 30% 45% 60% 75%

Community Issues Associated with United Way

None = 24%

Seniors

Early Childhood Development

Domestic Violence

Affordable Housing/Homelessness

Health Care

Children and Youth

Families

Civic InvolvementSafety

Economic Self-Sufficiency


Awareness of Availability of 2-1-1 in Community

Yes64%

No36%


Personally Investigate Charities

Yes45%

No55%


117


81%73%

88% 89%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Charities inGeneral

United Way Red Cross SalvationArmy

Confidence in Charities to Do a Good Job*

* Top 2 Box = a great deal/a fair amount


31%

50%

15%

5%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

A Great Deal A Fair Amount Not too Much None at All

Confidence in Charities in General to Do a Good Job

Top 2 Box = 81%


32%

41%

17%

10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%


Confidence in United Way to Do a Good Job

Top 2 Box = 73%


118


55%

32%

7% 6%

0%

15%

30%

45%

60%

75%


Confidence in American Red Cross to Do a Good Job

Top 2 Box = 88%


51%

38%

7%4%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%


Confidence in Salvation Army to Do a Good Job

Top 2 Box = 89%


Trust and Charities

51%

15%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Charities In General

75%

88% 91%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

UnitedWay

AmericanRed Cross

SalvationArmy

Some But Not

Others, 34%


119


12%15%

19%15%

10%6% 5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

United Way SalvationArmy

AmericanRed Cross

Church/Synagogues/

Relig orgs.

AmericanCancerSociety

Children(general)

Cancer(general)

Top-of-Mind Awareness of “Charitable Organizations That Make a Difference in the Community”

9% None came to mind


Charitable Organizations Contributed to in Past 12 Months (Unprompted)

20% Said they did not make any charitable contributions

5%

9%11%

13%

20%

15%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

United Way Churches/ReligiousOrganizations

American CancerSociety

American Red

Cross

Salvation Army

Community/Fire/Police (general)


Amount of Money Donated to All Charities in the Past 12 Months

$1001 or More18%

$501-$100011%

$500 or Less71%

Median $200


120


Aware of United Way

No7%

Yes93%


36%40%

14%10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Very Favorable SomewhatFavorable

SomewhatUnfavorable

VeryUnfavorable

Favorability toward United Way

Top 2 Box = 76%


Donor Status

Former Donor24%

Current Donor26%

Non Donor50%


121


42%

29%

19%

5%4%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

VerySatisfied

SomewhatSatisfied

Neither SomewhatDissatisfied

VeryDissatisfied

Satisfaction with Relationship with United Way (Among Current Donors)

Top 2 Box = 71%


25%30%

15%

31%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Very Likely SomewhatLikely

SomewhatUnlikely

Very Unlikely

Likelihood of Giving to United Way in Future

Top 2 Box = 55%


United Way Advertising Awareness in Specific Medias

11%5%

14%

30%36%

40%

0%

20%

40%

60%

NFL TVSpots

Other TVSpots

FeaturingUW

Print Radio ElectronicMail

Video/Film


122


10%

20%

42%

21%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

NFL just needs good publicity/PR stunt

NFL players are fun/good sports

NFL is a good corporate citizen

NFL cares about community

Attitudes toward NFL Resulting from UW/NFL Ads (Among Viewers of Ads)


Importance of UW Brand Promises(Very/Somewhat Important)

85%

83%

92%

83%

86%

84%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Lets People Know

Gets Visible Results

Brings Community Together

Money Well Spent

Enables Me to Make a Difference

Energizes and Inspires


Agreement of UW Brand Promises(Strongly/Somewhat Agree)

54%

47%

58%

51%

53%

51%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Lets People Know

Gets Visible Results

Brings Community Together

Money Well Spent

Enables Me to Make a Difference

Energizes and Inspires


123


Agreement of Key Attributes about United Way(Strongly/Somewhat Agree)

48%

67%

57%

22%

62%

66%

56%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Innovative

Trustworthy

Results Oriented

Arrogant

Collaborative

Influential

Personal


Agreement of Key Attributes about Red Cross(Strongly/Somewhat Agree)

64%

77%

68%

18%

78%

80%

62%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Innovative

Trustworthy

Results Oriented

Arrogant

Collaborative

Influential

Personal


Agreement of Key Attributes about Salvation Army(Strongly/Somewhat Agree)

65%

69%

63%

14%

75%

82%

56%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Innovative

Trustworthy

Results Oriented

Arrogant

Collaborative

Influential

Personal


124


Typical United Way Donor

• Half are male (49%)• Half are between the ages of 35 and 54 (49%) (mean age is 51)• Average number in workplace is 573• More than one-quarter work in a workplace with 1,000 or more

employees (27%)• Over three-quarters own their own home (78%)• More than half have a home Internet account (54%)• Half (50%) report an income of $50,000 or more (Average income is

$64,000)• Almost half have no will (48%)• More than three-quarters are Caucasian (78%)• Over half personally investigate charities (53%)


Female50%

Male50%

Gender


Age55 and Up

36%

18-269%

35-5441%

27-3413%

Average Age = 50


125


Education

33%

53%

14%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

High School College Graduate School


Marital Status

23%

56%

2%

11% 9%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Single Married Separated Divorced Widowed


Children under Age Five in Household

No86%

Yes14%


126


Income

14% 14%

30% 29%

8%5%

0%

20%

40%

60%

Under$15,000

$15,000-$25,000

$25,000-$50,000

$50,000-$100,000

$100,000-$150,000

$150,000or More

Mean = $57,800


Ethnicity

79%

11%5%

1% 2% 3%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Caucasian African-American

Hispanic NativeAmerican

AsianAmerican

Other


Employment Status

44%

8% 7%1%

24%

16%

0%

20%

40%

60%

Full Time Part Time Self-FullTime

Self-PartTime

Retired NotEmployed


127


Union Membership

No91%

Yes9%

UW A Research: 2004 Public Opinion Poll 40

Home Internet Account

No52% Yes

48%

UW A R e se a rch: 2 0 0 4 P ub lic O p in io n P o ll 4 1

Ren t26%

O w n74%

H om e O w nersh ip

Note. The data in Appendix B is from United Way of America Research. (2004, December). 2004 national public opinion poll. Reprinted with permission.


128

APPENDIX C UNITED WAY OF PUTNAM COUNTY WEB SURVEY

This survey’s purpose is to gather information from Putnam County residents through

the replication of a study that is done annually on a national level by United Way of America.

Survey data will provide in-depth information that will better enable United Way of Putnam

County to develop and implement sound marketing strategies and communication efforts.

Your consent to participate will be indicated by completing and submitting the on-line

survey. Participation is voluntary and no rewards or compensation will be awarded. There are no

questions that identify participants keeping involvement confidential, and the raw data will only

be seen by United Way staff members. Withdrawal from the survey will be identified by your

non-submittal of the survey. Please complete only one survey.

Data obtained through this survey will also be used as part of a doctoral program at

Capella University being completed by Barb Rogers, BS, MBOL.

1. When you think about non-profit or charitable organizations that make a difference in the community, which organizations come to mind? (ENTER MULTIPLE RESPONSES.) 2A. How much confidence do you have in charitable organizations in general to do a good job?

4. A great deal 3. A fair amount 2. Not too much 1. None at all

5. Don’t know

2B. How much confidence do you have in United Way to do a good job?

4. A great deal 3. A fair amount 2. Not too much 1. None at all 5. Don’t know


129

2C. How much confidence do you have in the Salvation Army to do a good job?


2D. How much confidence to you have in the American Red Cross to do a good job?


3A. To which non-profit or charitable organizations have you contributed money in the past 12 months?

1. American Cancer Society 2. American Diabetes Association 3. American Heart Association/Heart Fund 4. American Lung Society 5. American Red Cross 6. Animal shelters (general) 7. Arts 8. Big Brothers/Big Sisters 9. Boys and Girls Clubs 10. Boy Scouts 11. Camp Fire Boys and Girls 12. Cancer (general) 13. Children (general) 14. Children’s fund 15. Church/synagogue/religious organization (SPECIFY) 16. Civil Rights 17. Community centers (general) 18. Community fire/police/rescue (general) 19. Cultural 20. Disability 21. Disabled veterans 22. Disaster relief 23. Education (miscellaneous)


130

24. Elderly/Aging 25. Environmental organizations 26. Family Planning/Parenting 27. Girl Scouts 28. Goodwill Industries of America 29. Healthcare organizations 30. Homeless charities/missions (general) 31. Humane Society 32. MADD/Mothers Against Drunk Driving 33. Make a Wish Foundation 34. March of Dimes 35. Muscular Dystrophy Association 36. National Easter Seal Society 37. National Wildlife/Wildlife organizations 38. Political/Advocacy organizations 39. Religious charities (general) 40. St. Jude’s/St. Jude’s Research/Children’s Hospital 41. Salvation Army 42. School/university alumni (general) 43. Shriners 44. Special Olympics 45. Sports/Recreational 46. United Way 47. Veterans (general) 48. Visiting Nurse Association 49. Volunteers of America 50. Youth (miscellaneous) 51. YMCA 52. YWCA 53. Other (SPECIFY) 54. None 55. Don’t know 56. Refused

ASK IF CHARITY IS MENTIONED IN Q3A 3B. Think about all the monetary contributions you made to charitable or non-profit organizations in the past 12 months, approximately what was the total that you gave or pledged to all charities? (IF UNSURE, GIVE BEST GUESS.)

$__________ Don’t know Prefer not to say


131

3C. Have you ever donated to a charity via the Internet?


4. Do you personally investigate charities to which you donate money?


5. In general, do you trust charities to do what they say they will do with the donations?

1. Yes 2. No 3. I trust some charities but not others 4. Don’t know

6. Do you trust United Way to do what it says it will do with the donations?


7. Do you trust American Red Cross to do what it says it will do with the donations?


8. Do you trust Salvation Army to do what it says it will do with the donations?


COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT ISSUES


132

9. How much do you agree or disagree with the following statement, “I am actively involved in the community?” Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, neither agree nor disagree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree?

5. Strongly agree 4. Somewhat agree 3. Neither agree nor disagree 2. Somewhat disagree 1. Strongly disagree 6. Don’t know

10. Have you volunteered for any type of service in the past 12 months, including helping at your local church, serving on a neighborhood committee, or donating blood? By volunteer, we mean work to help others without monetary pay, not just belonging to an organization?


11. How important do you feel it is that people volunteer in the community?


6. Don’t know

12. How many neighbors or colleagues could you really count on if you needed help, such as a ride to the hospital or to talk about a problem? (COUNT A HOUSEHOLD AS ONE)

__________ Enter number

1. Don’t work 2. Don’t know

13A. Have you heard of 2-1-1?

1. Yes CONTINUE 2. No SKIP TO Q13C 3. Don’t know SKIP TO Q13C


133

13B. To the best of your knowledge, is 2-1-1 available in your community?


13C. In the past year, have you needed to get information on how to find help for you or your family, such as information on daycare, emergency food or shelter, counseling, home healthcare, after school programs, etc?


14. Have you heard of United Way?


15. Thinking about everything you know, what is your overall opinion of the United Way?

4. Very favorable 3. Somewhat favorable 2. Somewhat unfavorable 1. Very unfavorable 5. Don’t know

16. Have you heard of any of the following:

1. United Way’s Success by Six 2. The United Way State of Caring 3. The United Way Draft 4. None


134

17. How important is each item when deciding to contribute to or volunteer with a charitable organization? Please tell me whether the item is very important, somewhat important, neither important nor unimportant, somewhat unimportant, or very unimportant. How important is it that….

A. An organization lets me know what is being accomplished with my contributions B. An organization gets visible results in my community C. An organization brings our community together to focus on solutions for the most pressing community problems D. An organization makes sure the money I give is well spent E. An organization enables me to make the greatest difference in improving my community F. An organization energizes and inspires people to get involved in our community


6. Don’t know

18. For the next series of statements, tell how much you agree with the statement. Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, neither agree nor disagree, somewhat agree, strongly disagree….?

A. United Way is an organization that lets me know what is being accomplished with my contributions B. United Way is an organization that gets visible results in my community C. United Way is an organization that brings our community together to focus on solutions for the most pressing community problems D. United Way is an organization that makes sure the money I give is well spent E. United Way is an organization that enables me to make the greatest difference in improving my community F. United Way is an organization that energizes and inspires people to get involved in our community



135

19. Below is a series of adjectives used to describe the United Way, the Salvation Army, and the American Red Cross, please tell me how much you agree or disagree with each adjective as it applies to each charity. Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, neither agree nor disagree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree with the adjectives? United Way



Red Cross




136

Salvation Army A. Innovative B. Trustworthy C. Results oriented D. Arrogant E. Collaborative F. Influential G. Personal


20. Have you been asked to give money to United Way in the past 12 months?


21. Regardless of whether you have been asked, have you donated any money to United Way in the past 12 months?


22. Have you given to United Way prior to the last 12 months?



137

ASK IF Q21 IS YES

23. Approximately how much did you give to United Way in the past 12 months? (ENTER AMOUNT IN DOLLARS).

$__________ Don’t know

ASK IF Q21 IS YES 24A. Thinking back on your contribution to United Way, what prompted you to make this donation? (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)

1. They asked me 2. Boss made me 3. Asked to donate at work 4. Tax benefit 5. Part of financial strategy 6. Acquisition of new wealth by myself or my family 7. An event associated with UW 8. News or media story 9. Response to a specific request (for example, a capital campaign) 10. Involvement of friend, family member, or co-worker with UW 11. Personal experience with UW 12. Family tradition 13. Business connection 14. Health (illness—family, friend, or personal) 15. Personal event 16. Atonement for past misdeeds 17. Feel strongly about the cause 18. Religion or spirituality 19. Moral imperative 20. Tithing 21. Other (SPECIFY) 22. Don’t know 23. Refused


138

ASK IF Q21 IS NO AND Q22 IS YES 24B. Why did you choose not to donate to United Way this year? (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY).

1. Never asked/contacted 2. Didn’t receive any literature on it 3. Employer isn’t participating in campaign 4. No longer work for company sponsoring a campaign 5. Can’t afford to/no money 6. Retired 7. Unemployed 8. On a fixed income 9. Have had medical expenses/family members sick 10. Gave money to other charities 11. Like to pick own charity 12. Didn’t have time 13. Pressured to give makes me not give 14. Turned off by unfavorable news articles/bad press 15. Money scandal/crooks 16. Don’t like the charities/groups they give to 17. They did not help me/friend/family member 18. Not sure how much money actually goes to help people 19. Other (SPECIFY) 20. None/no reason 21. Don’t know 22. Refused

ASK IF Q21 IS NO AND Q22 IS NO 24C. Why have you never given to United Way? (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)

1. Never asked/contacted 2. Didn’t receive any literature on it 3. Employer isn’t participating in campaign 4. Not familiar with it 5. No UW office in my area 6. No longer work for company sponsoring a campaign 7. Can’t afford to/No money 8. Retired 9. Unemployed 10. On a fixed income 11. Have had medical expenses/family members sick 12. Gave money to other charities 13. Like to pick own charity 14. Didn’t have time


139

15. Pressured to give makes me not give 16. Turned off by unfavorable news articles/bad press 17. Money scandal/crooks 18. Don’t like the charities/groups they give to 19. They did not help me/friend/family member 20. Not sure how much money actually goes to help people 21. Like to have greater control over where the money goes 22. Give directly to organization/person in need 23. Other (SPECIFY) 24. None/no reason 25. Don’t know 26. Refused

ASK IF YES CHECKED IN Q21 25. Overall, how satisfied are you with your relationship with United Way? Are you very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, somewhat dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied?

5. Very satisfied 4. Somewhat satisfied 3. Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 2. Somewhat dissatisfied 1. Very dissatisfied 6. Don’t know

ASK OF EVERYONE 26. How likely will you be to give to United Way in the future? (CHECK ONLY ONE).

4. Very likely 3. Somewhat likely 2. Somewhat unlikely 1. Very unlikely 5. Don’t know

ASK IF Q21 IS YES 27. Were you thanked for your United Way contribution?



140

28. Were you thanked by….(MARK ALL THAT APPLY)

1. Your United Way 2. Your employer 3. The United Way agency(ies) to which your contribution was given

29. Once you made a contribution to United Way, how would you most like to be recognized for this donation? (MARK ONLY ONE).

1. Letter 2. Gift 3. Plaque/certificate 4. Invitation to a dinner/lunch or party 5. Mention in a newsletter or newspaper 6. Personal visit from United Way official 7. Other (SPECIFY) 8. Do not want recognition

30. Do you recall receiving information from United Way about how your United Way contribution is being used?

1. Yes CONTINUE 2. No SKIP TO Q32 3. Don’t know SKIP TO Q32

31. As a result of the information you received from United Way, are you better informed about the results that are being achieved with your contribution?


32. In the past four months, have you seen, heard, or read any advertisements from the American Red Cross, the United Way, or the Salvation Army? (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)

1. American Red Cross 2. Salvation Army 3. United Way CONTINUE 4. Don’t know SKIP TO Q34 5. None SKIP TO Q34


141

33A. In the past four months, have you seen, heard, or read any advertisements for United Way? (MARK ALL THAT APPLY).

1. TV spots associated with the National Football League 2. Other TV spots featuring United Way 3. Ads in newspapers or magazines 4. Announcements on the radio 5. Electronic mail or electronic bulletin board 6. A video or film

ASK IF 1 IS CHECKED IN Q33A 33B. How do the UW/NFL ads make you feel about the NFL? (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)

1. NFL players are silly/fun/good sports 2. NFL is a good corporate citizen 3. NFL cares about the community 4. NFL just needs good publicity/PR stunt 5. Other (SPECIFY) 6. Nothing 7. Don’t know

ASK IF 1 IS CHECKED IN Q33A 33C. How do the UW/NFL ads make you feel about United Way? (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY).

1. United Way helps people get involved in the community 2. UW pays football players to say good things about them 3. UW does cute commercials 4. Donor money should not go to pay for these ads 5. Other (SPECIFY) 6. Nothing 7. Don’t know

34. In the past year, have you seen or heard the phrase “What Matters” in…(CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)

1. In advertising for United Way 2. On United Way materials 3. On the United Way Web site 4. None of the above 5. Don’t know


142

35. Have you ever seen the UW/NFL Thanksgiving Day Half Time Show?


36. How would you rate United Way as a leader in community impact?

5. Very effective 4. Somewhat effective 3. Neither effective nor ineffective 2. Somewhat ineffective 1. Very ineffective 6. Don’t know 7. Refused

37. Do you associate United Way with any of the following community issues? (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY).

1. Seniors 2. Early childhood development (birth to six) 3. Affordable housing and homelessness 4. Health care 5. Domestic violence 6. Children and youth (school age seven to 18) 7. Families 8. Civic involvement 9. Safety 10. Economic self-sufficiency 11. None of the above 12. Don’t know what United Way does

38. Are you employed with a company that has a United Way fundraising campaign?



143

39. What is your overall opinion of the United Way campaign to raise money? 4. Very favorable 3. Somewhat favorable 2. Somewhat unfavorable 1. Very unfavorable 5. Don’t know 6. Refused

40. Please give your agreement level with the following statement. Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, neither agree nor disagree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree with the statement: My company’s support of United Way makes me feel good about my company.


41. Would you be more inclined to work for a company that supports United Way?


42. Would you be more inclined to buy a product or service from a company that supports United Way?


43. Would you be more inclined to invest in a company that supports United Way?



144

44A. In the past 12 months, have you felt pressured to give to United Way?


44B. Did the pressure that you felt, cause you to want to…?

1. Give more to United Way 2. Give less to United Way 3. Have no impact on you

DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONS 45. What is your gender?

1. Male 2. Female

46. Which of the following best describes your age?

1. 18 to 26 2. 27 to 34 3. 35 to 54 4. 55 and older 5. Refused

47. What is the highest of education you completed?

1. High school 2. Some college 3. College graduate 4. Graduate school or higher (any) 5. Refused


145

48. What is your current employment status? Are you employed….? 1. Full time---Not self-employed CONTINUE 2. Part time---Not self-employed CONTINUE 3. Self-employed---Full time SKIP TO Q50 4. Self-employed---Part time SKIP TO Q50 5. Retired SKIP TO Q50 6. Not employed SKIP TO Q50 7. Refused SKIP TO Q50

49. How many employees are at your place of employment?

1. 1 to 50 2. 51 to 250 3. 251 to 999 4. 1000 or more 5. Don’t know 6. Refused

50. Are you a member of a labor union?


51. What is your marital status?

1. Married 2. Single, never been married 3. Separated 4. Divorced 5. Widowed 6. Refused

52A. Do you have children under the age of five living in your household?

1. Yes CONTINUE 2. No SKIP TO Q53


146

52B. As a parent or grandparent of a young child, do you do any of the following: (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)

A. Talk with your child in full sentences, such as “Yes that’s a big furry dog” B. Wake the child up by 7:00 a.m. every morning C. Praise your child by saying, “Good job” D. Hug or snuggle your child at least four times a day E. Use flash cards to teach math and letters F. Read to your child everyday and ask questions about the story G. Try teaching reading like they do in school H. Encourage your child by saying things such as, “You did that task all by yourself” I. Ask your children questions about what they see

1. Yes 2. No 3. No time 4. Didn’t know I needed to do this

53. Do you own your current place of residence?

1. Rent 2. Own 3. Refused

54. Do you have a home e-mail account on the Internet?

1. Yes 2. No 3. Don’t know/Refused

55. Did you itemize your deductions on your 2002 tax return?

1. Yes 2. No 3. Refused 4. Don’t remember


147

56. Which of the following best describes your household’s total annual income before taxes?

1. Under $15,000 2. $15,000 but less than $25,000 3. $25,000 but less than $50,000 4. $50,000 but less than $100,000 5. $100,000 but less than $150,000 6. $150,000 or more 7. Don’t know 8. Refused

57. Which of the following statements best describes how charitable giving fits in with your estate planning?

1. I have a will and have included contributions to charities in it 2. I have a will and have not included contributions to charities in it 3. I do not have a will 4. Don’t know 5. Refused

58. Would you consider United Way in your estate or will planning?


59. What ethnic group would you consider yourself to be?

1. White (Anglo-American) 2. Black (African-American) 3. Hispanic/Latin American 4. Asian-American 5. Native American 6. Mixed 7. Other (SPECIFY) 8. Refused

60. What is your zip code?


148

APPENDIX D UNITED WAY OF PUTNAM COUNTY WEB SURVEY RESULTS

Q2A: How much confidence do you have in charitable organizations in general to do a good job?

(Respondents could only choose a single response)

Response 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Frequency Count

A great deal 41.4% 41

A fair amount 53.5% 53

Not too much 5.1% 5

None at all 0.0% 0

Don't know 0.0% 0

Not Answered 6

Mean 1.636

Valid Responses 99

Total Responses 105

Q2B: How much confidence do you have in United Way to do a good job?





Not too much 3.1% 3

None at all 0.0% 0

Don't know 2.0% 2

Not Answered 7

Mean 1.520

Valid Responses 98

Total Responses 105

Q2C: How much confidence do you have in the Salvation Army to do a good job?






149

Not too much 6.1% 6

None at all 1.0% 1

Don't know 6.1% 6

Not Answered 7

Mean 2.000

Valid Responses 98

Total Responses 105

Q2D: How much confidence do you have in the American Red Cross to do a good job?





Not too much 6.1% 6

None at all 0.0% 0

Don't know 0.0% 0

Not Answered 7

Mean 1.500

Valid Responses 98

Total Responses 105

Q3A: To which non-profit or charitable organizations have you contributed money in the past 12 months?

(Respondents were allowed to choose multiple responses)


American Cancer Society 50.5% 53

American Diabetes Association 16.2% 17

American Heart Association/Heart Fund 25.7% 27

American Lung Society 2.9% 3

American Red Cross 44.8% 47

Animal Shelters (General) 8.6% 9

Arts 4.8% 5

Big Brothers/Big Sisters 17.1% 18

Boys and Girls Clubs 3.8% 4


150

Boy Scouts 30.5% 32

Camp Fire Boys and Girls 0.0% 0

Cancer (General) 30.5% 32

Children (General) 20.0% 21

Children's Fund 4.8% 5

Church/Synagogue/Religious Organization Please specify: 67.6% 71

Civil Rights 1.0% 1

Community Centers (General) 2.9% 3

Community Fire/Police/Rescue (General) 21.0% 22

Cultural 2.9% 3

Disability 3.8% 4

Disabled Veterans 15.2% 16

Disaster Relief 24.8% 26

Education (Miscellaneous) 27.6% 29

Elderly/Aging 12.4% 13

Environment Organizations 6.7% 7

Family Planning/Parenting 4.8% 5

Girl Scouts 21.9% 23

Goodwill Industries of America 13.3% 14

Healthcare Organizations 14.3% 15

Homeless Charities/Missions (General) 8.6% 9

Humane Society 7.6% 8

MADD/Mothers Against Drunk Driving 0.0% 0

Make a Wish Foundation 11.4% 12

March of Dimes 13.3% 14

Muscular Dystrophy Association 11.4% 12

National Easter Seal Society 2.9% 3

National Wildlife/Wildlife Organizations 6.7% 7

Political/Advocacy Organizations 5.7% 6

Religious Charities (General) 17.1% 18

St. Jude's/St. Jude's Research/Children's Hospital 22.9% 24

Salvation Army 18.1% 19

School/University Alumni (General) 19.0% 20


151

Shriners 2.9% 3

Special Olympics 17.1% 18

Sports/Recreational 14.3% 15

United Way 70.5% 74

Veterans (General) 6.7% 7

Visiting Nurses Association 1.9% 2

Volunteers of America 0.0% 0

Youth (Miscellaneous) 14.3% 15

YMCA 18.1% 19

YWCA 1.9% 2

Other Please specify: 14.3% 15

None 0.0% 0

Don't Know 0.0% 0

Refused 1.0% 1

Valid Responses 105

Total Responses 105

Q4: Do you personally investigate charities to which you donate money?



Yes 53.1% 51

No 44.8% 43

Don't know 2.1% 2

Not Answered 9

Mean 1.490

Valid Responses 96

Total Responses 105

Q5: In general, do you trust charities to do what they say they will do with the donations?



Yes 37.5% 36

No 2.1% 2


152

I trust some charities but not others 59.4% 57

Don't know 1.0% 1

Not Answered 9

Mean 2.240

Valid Responses 96

Total Responses 105

Q6: Do you trust United Way to do what it says it will do with the donations?



Yes 94.8% 91

No 2.1% 2

Don't know 3.1% 3

Not Answered 9

Mean 1.083

Valid Responses 96

Total Responses 105

Q7: Do you trust American Red Cross to do what it says it will do with the donations?



Yes 82.5% 80

No 7.2% 7

Don't know 10.3% 10

Not Answered 8

Mean 1.278

Valid Responses 97

Total Responses 105

Q8: Do you trust Salvation Army to do what it says it will do with the donations?



Yes 64.6% 62


153

No 6.3% 6

Don't know 29.2% 28

Not Answered 9

Mean 1.646

Valid Responses 96

Total Responses 105

Q13A: Have you heard of 2-1-1?



Yes Continue 28.9% 28

No Skip to question 13C 70.1% 68

Don't know Skip to question 13C 1.0% 1

Not Answered 8

Mean 1.722

Valid Responses 97

Total Responses 105

Q14: Have you heard of United Way?



Yes 97.9% 95

No 2.1% 2

Don't know 0.0% 0

Not Answered 8

Mean 1.021

Valid Responses 97

Total Responses 105

Q15: Thinking about everything you know, what is your overall opinion of United Way?



Very favorable 58.8% 57


154

Somewhat favorable 36.1% 35

Somewhat unfavorable 4.1% 4

Very unfavorable 0.0% 0

Don't know 1.0% 1

Not Answered 8

Mean 1.485

Valid Responses 97

Total Responses 105

Q16: Have you heard of any of the following:



United Way's Success by Six 8.6% 9

The United Way State of Caring 13.3% 14

The United Way Draft 5.7% 6

None 73.3% 77

Valid Responses 105

Total Responses 105

Q17_A: How important is each item when deciding to contribute to or volunteer with a charitable organization:

Very important

Somewhat important

Neither important nor unimportant

Somewhat unimportant

Very unimportant

Don't know Total

Count 68 14 3 0 0 0 85 An organization lets me know what is being accomplished with my contributions % by Row 80.0% 16.5% 3.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

Count 63 21 1 0 0 0 85 An organization gets visible results in my community

% by Row 74.1% 24.7% 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

Count 53 28 4 0 0 0 85 An organization brings our community together to focus on solutions for the most pressing community problems % by Row 62.4% 32.9% 4.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

Count 76 9 0 0 0 0 85 An organization makes sure the money I give is well spent

% by Row 89.4% 10.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

Count 52 30 2 0 1 0 85 An organization enables me to make the greatest difference in improving my community % by Row 61.2% 35.3% 2.4% 0.0% 1.2% 0.0% 100.0%


155

Count 46 32 5 1 0 0 84 An organization energizes and inspires people to get involved in our community % by Row 54.8% 38.1% 6.0% 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

Count 358 134 15 1 1 0 509 Total

% by Row 70.3% 26.3% 2.9% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 100.0%

Q18_A: For the next series of statements, tell how much you agree with the statement:

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree


Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

Don't know Total

Count 40 27 8 3 1 3 82 United Way is an organization that lets me know what is being accomplished with my contributions % by Row 48.8% 32.9% 9.8% 3.7% 1.2% 3.7% 100.0%

Count 37 34 8 0 1 2 82 United Way is an organization that gets visible results in my community

% by Row 45.1% 41.5% 9.8% 0.0% 1.2% 2.4% 100.0%

Count 26 35 12 4 2 3 82 United Way is an organization that brings our community together to focus on solutions for the most pressing community problems % by Row 31.7% 42.7% 14.6% 4.9% 2.4% 3.7% 100.0%

Count 37 34 4 1 2 3 81 United Way is an organization that makes sure the money I give is well spent

% by Row 45.7% 42.0% 4.9% 1.2% 2.5% 3.7% 100.0%

Count 31 27 14 6 0 3 81 United Way is an organization that enables me to make the greatest difference in improving my community % by Row 38.3% 33.3% 17.3% 7.4% 0.0% 3.7% 100.0%

Count 24 33 11 7 2 3 80 United Way is an organization that energizes and inspires people to get involved in our community % by Row 30.0% 41.3% 13.8% 8.8% 2.5% 3.8% 100.0%

Count 195 190 57 21 8 17 488 Total

% by Row 40.0% 38.9% 11.7% 4.3% 1.6% 3.5% 100.0%

Q19_A: Below is a series of adjectives used to describe the United Way, Salvation Army, and the American Red Cross. Please tell how much you agree or disagree with each adjective as it applies to each charity.

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree


Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

Don't know Total

Count 22 40 13 7 1 6 89 United Way is innovative

% by Row 24.7% 44.9% 14.6% 7.9% 1.1% 6.7% 100.0%

Count 57 27 3 1 1 1 90 United Way is trustworthy

% by Row 63.3% 30.0% 3.3% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 100.0%

Count 36 37 10 2 1 4 90 United Way is results oriented

% by Row 40.0% 41.1% 11.1% 2.2% 1.1% 4.4% 100.0%


156

Count 6 7 16 16 41 4 90 United Way is arrogant

% by Row 6.7% 7.8% 17.8% 17.8% 45.6% 4.4% 100.0%

Count 31 39 10 5 0 5 90 United Way is collaborative

% by Row 34.4% 43.3% 11.1% 5.6% 0.0% 5.6% 100.0%

Count 24 41 17 4 0 4 90 United Way is influential

% by Row 26.7% 45.6% 18.9% 4.4% 0.0% 4.4% 100.0%

Count 17 32 27 7 2 4 89 United Way is personal

% by Row 19.1% 36.0% 30.3% 7.9% 2.2% 4.5% 100.0%

Count 14 39 24 2 0 10 89 Red Cross is innovative

% by Row 15.7% 43.8% 27.0% 2.2% 0.0% 11.2% 100.0%

Count 34 43 5 2 3 3 90 Red Cross is trustworthy

% by Row 37.8% 47.8% 5.6% 2.2% 3.3% 3.3% 100.0%

Count 27 33 19 3 2 6 90 Red Cross is results oriented

% by Row 30.0% 36.7% 21.1% 3.3% 2.2% 6.7% 100.0%

Count 1 12 21 13 36 7 90 Red Cross is arrogant

% by Row 1.1% 13.3% 23.3% 14.4% 40.0% 7.8% 100.0%

Count 15 36 23 6 0 9 89 Red Cross is collaborative

% by Row 16.9% 40.4% 25.8% 6.7% 0.0% 10.1% 100.0%

Count 26 40 12 3 0 5 86 Red Cross is influential

% by Row 30.2% 46.5% 14.0% 3.5% 0.0% 5.8% 100.0%

Count 21 35 22 4 1 6 89 Red Cross is personal

% by Row 23.6% 39.3% 24.7% 4.5% 1.1% 6.7% 100.0%

Count 6 29 28 10 1 15 89 Salvation Army is innovative

% by Row 6.7% 32.6% 31.5% 11.2% 1.1% 16.9% 100.0%

Count 26 33 14 1 1 13 88 Salvation Army is trustworthy

% by Row 29.5% 37.5% 15.9% 1.1% 1.1% 14.8% 100.0%

Count 14 31 24 5 0 16 90 Salvation Army is results oriented

% by Row 15.6% 34.4% 26.7% 5.6% 0.0% 17.8% 100.0%

Count 1 6 21 14 30 18 90 Salvation Army is arrogant

% by Row 1.1% 6.7% 23.3% 15.6% 33.3% 20.0% 100.0%

Count 9 29 22 7 1 19 87 Salvation Army is collaborative

% by Row 10.3% 33.3% 25.3% 8.0% 1.1% 21.8% 100.0%

Salvation Army is Count 8 33 26 7 1 15 90


157

influential % by Row 8.9% 36.7% 28.9% 7.8% 1.1% 16.7% 100.0%

Count 9 25 32 5 0 16 87 Salvation Army is personal

% by Row 10.3% 28.7% 36.8% 5.7% 0.0% 18.4% 100.0%

Count 404 647 389 124 122 186 1872 Total

% by Row 21.6% 34.6% 20.8% 6.6% 6.5% 9.9% 100.0%

Q25: Please answer if question 21 is yes. Overall, how satisfied are you with your relationship with United Way?



Very satisfied 56.8% 46

Somewhat satisfied 28.4% 23

Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 12.3% 10

Somewhat dissatisfied 1.2% 1

Very dissatisfied 0.0% 0

Don't know 1.2% 1

Not Answered 24

Mean 1.630

Valid Responses 81

Total Responses 105

Q26: How likely will you be to give to United Way in the future?



Very likely 68.5% 63

Somewhat likely 22.8% 21

Somewhat unlikely 0.0% 0

Very unlikely 6.5% 6

Don't know 2.2% 2

Not Answered 13

Mean 1.511

Valid Responses 92

Total Responses 105


158

Q32: In the past four months, have you seen, heard, or read any advertisements from the American Red Cross, the United Way, or the Salvation Army? (Check all that apply)



American Red Cross 61.0% 64

Salvation Army 29.5% 31

United Way Continue 66.7% 70

Don't know Skip to question 34 7.6% 8

Non Skip to question 34 6.7% 7

Valid Responses 105

Total Responses 105

Q33A: In the past four months, have you seen, heard, or read any advertisements for United Way? (Check all that apply)



TV spots associated with the National Football League 34.3% 36

Other TV spots featuring United Way 19.0% 20

Ads in newspapers or magazines 42.9% 45

Announcements on the radio 27.6% 29

Electronic mail or electronic bulletin board 11.4% 12

A video or film 2.9% 3

Valid Responses 105

Total Responses 105

Q37: Do you associate United Way with any of the following community issues? (Check all that apply)



Seniors 53.3% 56

Early childhood development (birth to six) 42.9% 45

Affordable housing and homelessness 23.8% 25

Health care 30.5% 32

Domestic violence 40.0% 42

Children and youth (school age seven to eighteen) 58.1% 61

Families 61.0% 64


159

Civic involvement 27.6% 29

Safety 16.2% 17

Economic self-sufficiency 16.2% 17

None of the above 2.9% 3

Don't know what United Way does 5.7% 6

Valid Responses 105

Total Responses 105

Q45: What is your gender?



Male 26.9% 25

Female 73.1% 68

Not Answered 12

Mean 1.731

Valid Responses 93

Total Responses 105

Q46: Which of the following best describes your age?



18 to 26 4.2% 4

27 to 34 12.6% 12

35 to 54 61.1% 58

55 and older 22.1% 21

Refused 0.0% 0

Not Answered 10

Mean 3.011

Valid Responses 95

Total Responses 105


160

Q47: What is the highest education you completed?



High school 10.5% 10

Some college 14.7% 14

College graduate 50.5% 48

Graduate school or higher (any) 24.2% 23

Refused 0.0% 0

Not Answered 10

Mean 2.884

Valid Responses 95

Total Responses 105

Q48: What is your current employment status? Are you employed...?



Full time--Not self-employed Continue 73.7% 70

Part time--Not self-employed Continue 11.6% 11

Self-employed--Full time Skip to question 50 6.3% 6

Self-employed--Part time Skip to question 50 0.0% 0

Retired Skip to question 50 7.4% 7

Not employed Skip to question 50 1.1% 1

Refused Skip to question 50 0.0% 0

Not Answered 10

Mean 1.589

Valid Responses 95

Total Responses 105

Q50: Are you a member of a labor union?



Yes 5.4% 5

No 94.6% 88


161

Don't know 0.0% 0

Refused 0.0% 0

Not Answered 12

Mean 1.946

Valid Responses 93

Total Responses 105

Q51: What is your marital status?



Married 86.0% 80

Single, never been married 10.8% 10

Separated 1.1% 1

Divorced 1.1% 1

Widowed 0.0% 0

Refused 1.1% 1

Not Answered 12

Mean 1.215

Valid Responses 93

Total Responses 105

Q52A: Do you have children under the age of five living in your household?



Yes Continue 18.9% 18

No Skip to question 53 81.1% 77

Not Answered 10

Mean 1.811

Valid Responses 95

Total Responses 105


162

Q53: Do you own your current place of residence?



Rent 4.3% 4

Own 93.6% 88

Refused 2.1% 2

Not Answered 11

Mean 1.979

Valid Responses 94

Total Responses 105

Q54: Do you have a home e-mail account on the Internet?



Yes 69.1% 65

No 25.5% 24

Don't know/Refused 5.3% 5

Not Answered 11

Mean 1.362

Valid Responses 94

Total Responses 105

Q56: Which of the following best describes your household's annual income before taxes?



Under $15,000 1.1% 1

$15,000 but less than $25,000 3.2% 3

$25,000 but less than $50,000 10.8% 10

$50,000 but less than $100,000 55.9% 52

$100,000 but less than $150,000 12.9% 12

$150,000 or more 3.2% 3

Don't know 0.0% 0

Refused 12.9% 12

Not Answered 12


163

Mean 4.505

Valid Responses 93

Total Responses 105

Q59: What ethnic group would you consider yourself to be?



White (Anglo-American) 96.8% 90

Black (African-American) 0.0% 0

Hispanic/Latin American 2.2% 2

Asian-American 0.0% 0

Native American 0.0% 0

Mixed 1.1% 1

Other Please specify: 0.0% 0

Refused 0.0% 0

Not Answered 12

Mean 1.097

Valid Responses 93

Total Responses 105


164

APPENDIX E INSTRUCTIONS FOR PARTICIPATION AND CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE

This survey’s purpose is to gather information from Putnam County residents through

the replication of a study that is done annually on a national level by United Way of America.

Survey data will provide in-depth information that will better enable United Way of Putnam

County to develop and implement sound marketing strategies and communication efforts.

Your consent to participate will be indicated by completing and submitting the on-line

survey. Participation is voluntary and no rewards or compensation will be awarded. There are

no questions that identify participants keeping involvement confidential, and the raw data will

only be seen by United Way staff members. Withdrawal from the survey will be identified by

your non-submittal of the survey. Please complete only one survey.

Data obtained through this survey will also be used as part of a doctoral program at

Capella University being completed by Barb Rogers, BS, MBOL.


165

APPENDIX F PUTNAM COUNTY SENTINEL ADVERTISEMENTS INVITING SURVEY PARTICIPATION

Community Matters

Putnam County Residents: United Way of Putnam County needs your help!

Please visit the following Web address to complete an on-line survey being conducted by United Way: http://www.unitedwaypc.com

Scroll down to the bottom of the page and click on “click here” to complete the survey. Your participation in this survey is important and will al-low United Way of Putnam County to focus its efforts where it is needed most in our community. Your participation is voluntary and will be kept confiden-tial. United Way of Putnam County 118 N. Hickory St. Ottawa, OH 45875 419-523-4505


166

APPENDIX G E-MAIL INVITING SURVEY PARTICIPATION

Putnam County Residents: United Way of Putnam County needs your help! Please visit the following Web address to complete an on-line survey being conducted for United Way:

Survey Link

Your participation in this survey is important and will allow United Way of Putnam County to focus its efforts where it is needed most in our community. Your participation is voluntary and no rewards or compensation will be awarded. There are no questions that identify participants keeping involvement confidential, and the raw data will only be seen by me. Data obtained through this survey will also be used as part of my doctoral program at Capella University. The survey being conducted is a replication of an annual survey that is done by United Way of America. Please send this to your co-workers and ask them to participate in the survey, also. Your support of United Way and my dissertation work is greatly appreciated! Thank you! Barb Rogers, BS, MBOL

Documents

out_3