<%BANNER%>

The Use of Technology-Based Communication Strategies for Fundraising in Health-Related Non Profits in North Central Florida

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0041648/00001

Material Information

Title: The Use of Technology-Based Communication Strategies for Fundraising in Health-Related Non Profits in North Central Florida
Physical Description: 1 online resource (120 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Brumby, Amanda
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2010

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: diffusion, florida, fundraising, nonprofit, npo, technology
Agricultural Education and Communication -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Agricultural Education and Communication thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: The weak economy has affected many individuals as well as businesses, and this is also the case with nonprofit organizations. NPO?s rely on fundraising efforts to fund their organizational goals and therefore getting their message out to their desired publics is the key to their success. This study examined the current methods that NPO?s use to disseminate messages to their publics, as well as finding which methods they do not utilize. Diffusion of Innovations (Rogers, 2009) was used as the theoretical framework for this study. The researcher used survey methodology to conduct this study and a questionnaire was created by the researcher and was distributed to 27 development officers of health-related NPO?s in North Central Florida. Upon analyzing the results, it was found that e-mail and use of the Internet were the most used technology-based communication methods used by the NPO?s surveyed. Blogging and Pod Casting were among the least utilized technology-based communication strategies. It was unknown to the researcher as to why these methods are not utilized. It was recommended by the researcher that further research be conducted in this field of study. Particularly, qualitative research was suggested in order to understand why certain strategies are utilized and others are not. It was also recommended by the research for NPO?s to make use of more technology-based communication strategies in order to make better use of funds and reach a more extensive audience.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Amanda Brumby.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2010.
Local: Adviser: Stedman, Nicole LaMee Perez.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2010
System ID: UFE0041648:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0041648/00001

Material Information

Title: The Use of Technology-Based Communication Strategies for Fundraising in Health-Related Non Profits in North Central Florida
Physical Description: 1 online resource (120 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Brumby, Amanda
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2010

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: diffusion, florida, fundraising, nonprofit, npo, technology
Agricultural Education and Communication -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Agricultural Education and Communication thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: The weak economy has affected many individuals as well as businesses, and this is also the case with nonprofit organizations. NPO?s rely on fundraising efforts to fund their organizational goals and therefore getting their message out to their desired publics is the key to their success. This study examined the current methods that NPO?s use to disseminate messages to their publics, as well as finding which methods they do not utilize. Diffusion of Innovations (Rogers, 2009) was used as the theoretical framework for this study. The researcher used survey methodology to conduct this study and a questionnaire was created by the researcher and was distributed to 27 development officers of health-related NPO?s in North Central Florida. Upon analyzing the results, it was found that e-mail and use of the Internet were the most used technology-based communication methods used by the NPO?s surveyed. Blogging and Pod Casting were among the least utilized technology-based communication strategies. It was unknown to the researcher as to why these methods are not utilized. It was recommended by the researcher that further research be conducted in this field of study. Particularly, qualitative research was suggested in order to understand why certain strategies are utilized and others are not. It was also recommended by the research for NPO?s to make use of more technology-based communication strategies in order to make better use of funds and reach a more extensive audience.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Amanda Brumby.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2010.
Local: Adviser: Stedman, Nicole LaMee Perez.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2010
System ID: UFE0041648:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 THE USE OF TECHNOLOGYBASED COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES FOR FUNDRAISING IN HEALTHRELATED NON PROFITS IN NORTH CENTRAL FLORIDA By AMANDA BRUMBY A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2010

PAGE 2

2 2010 Amanda Brumby

PAGE 3

3 This was written in honor of my friend, Denise Lori Saracino. Deeder I love you and will miss you forever. Thank you for your wonderful friendship. I love you!

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS There have been many people who have contributed to my thesis and in many different forms. From financial support to emotional support, I could not have made it through this process alone and I tr uly appreciate each and every person in my life that has helped guide and support me these last two years. First I would like to thank my family. Without these crucial people in my life I would not be the person I am today. To my mom words cannot expres s my love for you. You are always there for me no matter what and that is what a GREAT mother is. Thank you for being one of my best friends in life and always having words of encouragement even when I did not want to hear them. To my stepdad Dale, you hav e taught me so much over the course of my life and I appreciate every lesson! You have taught me many things from a true respect of working for everything you have, to etiquette I would not be the lady I am without your guidance. To my wonderful sister, Kristie thank you for your constant love. You are always supportive and more importantly, you make me laugh! There were so many times that I was on a verge of quitting and you making me laugh saved me! To my nieces Jada and Alanna you are the light of my life and my life would not be the same without you. I love you both so much! To my Dad thank you so much for all of your help and support throughout my life. I appreciate all you have done. To my wonderful stepbrothers, Stuart and Robert without your constant jokes I would not have the sense of humor (or tough skin) that I do. Thank you for being my big brothers and supporting me. I love you both! To the rest of family (aunts, uncles, cousins, etc.) I appreciate all of your love, support and encouragement. Thank you! Secondly, I would like to thank my advisor Dr. Nicole Stedman. This process would have been impossible if you were not here to guide me. You have helped me

PAGE 5

5 laugh, cry and believe that I could do this and look I did it! My other commi ttee members were also a tremendous help in this process. Dr. Tracy Irani and Dr. Dale Pracht you are both a wealth of knowledge and I have enjoyed working with you in a oneonone setting. Thank you for all of your contributions to my thesis. Additionally, I would like to thank the many faculty and staff members of the AEC department. You all were amazing during this process and I appreciate your encouragement. My fellow graduate students (as well as former graduate students) have made my exper ience as a Masters student unforgettable. Individuals like Christy Chiarelli, Elio Chiarelli, Katie Abrams, Carrie Pedreiro, Courtney Meyers, Ann DeLay, Anna Warner, Charley Nealis, Erica Der, Brian Estevez, Rochelle Strickland, Kyle Landrum, and many others have made this process much more fun! Thanks for taking this ride with me! The wonderful ladies at the March of Dimes in Gainesv ille were a tremendous help and source of support throughout my research. Without them I would never have had an interest in nonprofits and for this I thank each and every one of you! Thank you for the amazing work you do! A special t hank y ou goes to a group of four ladies who have changed my life forever The bond we have formed over these past two years will last a lifetime and I thank God every day for blessing me with such amazing friends. Katelyn you are the strong friend that I have always needed in my life. We have a bond that goes very deep and I cannot express to you how much I value your friendship. Thank you for yo u constant support and love you have shown me. I love you! Rachel you have enlightened my life in so many ways -your strength, your love and most importantly,

PAGE 6

6 your laugh! You have a gift of seeing things that I do not and it has truly been amazing to get to know you as such a close friend. I love you! Crystal you are always willing to listen and I cannot tell you how much I appreciate that. Our many late night chats and love for good wine has brought us so close! You are a wonderful friend. I love you! Sallie Ann you are one of the sweetest people I have ever met! You have enriched my life in ways you will never know. From trying to teach me how to cook to those intimate talks you are an amazing friend. I love you! This process would not have been the same without my best friend and boyfriend, Alex. You have been there for me through this entire process and probably wanted to leave several times but I really appreciate that you have stayed with me. It has been a journey that has brought us closer in many ways and I value each moment of it. Thank you for your constant support and love. Without you I would have had a nervous breakdown several times! Your input, guidance, and support have been amazing but it has been your love that has amazed me every day. I am so lucky to have you in my life and I cant wait to see what life has in store for us next! You are the love of my life. I love you with everything I have. Thank you! Most importantly, I need to thank God for his love and gift of strength. Without it I would have never made it this far, or be the person I am today.

PAGE 7

7 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................. 4 LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................... 10 ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................... 12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 14 Research Problem .................................................................................................. 19 Purpose and Objectives .......................................................................................... 20 Significance of Study .............................................................................................. 21 Definition of Terms .................................................................................................. 22 Limitations ............................................................................................................... 23 Assumptions ........................................................................................................... 24 Summary ................................................................................................................ 24 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE .................................................................................... 26 Theoretica l Framework ........................................................................................... 26 Elements of Diffusion ....................................................................................... 27 InnovationDecision Process ............................................................................ 29 Adopter Categories .......................................................................................... 29 Communication Channels for Nonprofit Organizations ........................................... 32 Technology in Nonprofits ........................................................................................ 34 Fundraising ............................................................................................................. 37 Special Events .................................................................................................. 40 Phone ............................................................................................................... 40 Personal Solicitation ......................................................................................... 41 Major Gifts ........................................................................................................ 42 Use of Technology in Fundraising .......................................................................... 42 Websites ........................................................................................................... 43 E mail ............................................................................................................... 44 Online donations .............................................................................................. 44 Stewardship ...................................................................................................... 46 Summary ................................................................................................................ 48 3 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................... 49 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 49 Research Design .................................................................................................... 50 Population ............................................................................................................... 50 Instrumentation ....................................................................................................... 51

PAGE 8

8 Data Collection ....................................................................................................... 53 Data Analysis .......................................................................................................... 56 Chapter Summary ................................................................................................... 58 4 RESULTS ............................................................................................................... 59 Demographics ......................................................................................................... 60 Gender and Age ............................................................................................... 60 Education Level ................................................................................................ 60 Classification of Employment ........................................................................... 60 Years with the Organization ............................................................................. 61 Oper ating Budget ............................................................................................. 61 Objective One ......................................................................................................... 61 Describe the Extent that NPOs Use Technology Based Communication Strategies ............................................................................................................ 61 Objective Two ......................................................................................................... 62 Describe Differences Among NPOs and Technology Based Communication ....... 62 Strategy use ............................................................................................................ 62 Objective Three ...................................................................................................... 63 Identify the Current Stage of the InnovationDecision Process ............................... 63 Objective Four ........................................................................................................ 63 Describe Differences in Current Stages in the InnovationDecision Process Among NPO s ...................................................................................................... 63 Objective Five ......................................................................................................... 64 Describe Skill Related to Technology Based Communication Strategies ............... 64 Objective Six ........................................................................................................... 65 Describe Relevance Related to Technology Based Communication Strategies ..... 65 Objective Seven ...................................................................................................... 65 Describe Mean Weighted Discrepancy Scores ....................................................... 65 Summary ................................................................................................................ 66 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................... 80 Summary of Findings .............................................................................................. 81 Objective 1: To Identify the Extent that HealthRelated NPOs Use Technology Based Communication Strategies to Disseminate Messages ... 81 Objective 2: To Describe the Differences which exist Among HealthRelated NPOs Use of Technology Based Communication Strategies. ...................... 83 Objective 3: To Identify the Current Stage of the HealthRelated Nonprofit Organizations in North Central Florida, According to the InnovationDecision Pr ocess in Regards to Use of Technology to Disseminate Information. ................................................................................................... 85 Objective 4: To Describe the Differences which Exist Among Health Related NPOs Current Stage in the InnovationDecision Process. .............. 87 Objective 5: To Describe the Self Reported Skill of Technology Based Communication Strategies in Fundraising. .................................................... 87

PAGE 9

9 Objective 6: To Describe the Self Reported Relevancy of Technology Based Com munication Strategies in Fundraising. ......................................... 88 Objective 7: To Report the Mean Weighted Discrepancy Scores for Comparing Skills and Relev ancy of Technology Based Communication Strategies in Fundraising. .............................................................................. 89 Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 89 Discussion and Implications .................................................................................... 90 Reco mmendations .................................................................................................. 92 Recommendations for Practice ........................................................................ 92 Recommendations for Future Research ........................................................... 92 Current Trends in Fundraising ................................................................................ 93 Reflection on Research Process ............................................................................. 94 Summary ................................................................................................................ 95 APPENDIX A INSTRUMENT ........................................................................................................ 96 B EMAIL 1 ................................................................................................................ 107 C EMAIL 2 ................................................................................................................ 109 D EMAIL 3 ................................................................................................................ 111 E EMAIL 4 ................................................................................................................ 112 F EMAIL 5 ................................................................................................................ 114 G EMAIL 6 ................................................................................................................ 115 LIST OF REFERENCES ............................................................................................. 116 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .......................................................................................... 120

PAGE 10

10 LIST OF TABLES Table page 4 1 Ages of Participants (n=13) ................................................................................ 67 4 2 Education Level of Participants (n=13) ............................................................... 67 4 3 Classification of Participants (n=13) ................................................................... 67 4 4 Participants number of years at organization (n=13) .......................................... 67 4 5 Operating Budget of Organization (n=13) ........................................................... 67 4 6 Levels of involvement with blogging ................................................................... 68 4 7 Means and Standard Deviations related to blogging .......................................... 68 4 8 Levels of involvement with Pod Casting ............................................................. 69 4 9 Means and Standard Deviations related to Pod Casting .................................... 69 4 10 Levels of involve ment with email ....................................................................... 70 4 11 Means and Standard Deviations related to email .............................................. 70 4 12 Levels of involvement with Internet ..................................................................... 71 4 13 Means and Standard Deviations related to use of the Internet ........................... 71 4 14 Use of blogging by NPOs .................................................................................. 72 4 15 Use of Pod Casting by NPOs ............................................................................. 72 4 16 Use of email by NPOs ...................................................................................... 72 4 17 Use of the Internet by NPOs .............................................................................. 72 4 18 Current Stage regarding Adobe Products ........................................................... 73 4 19 Current Stage regarding blogging ....................................................................... 73 4 20 Means and Standard Deviations related to blogging .......................................... 73 4 21 Current Stage regarding Pod Casting ................................................................. 74 4 22 Means and Standard Deviations related to Pod Casting .................................... 74 4 23 Current Stage regarding email use for fundraising ............................................ 75

PAGE 11

11 4 24 Means and Standard Deviations related to email .............................................. 75 4 25 Current Stage regarding Internet use for fundraising .......................................... 76 4 26 Means and Standard Deviations related to use of the Internet ........................... 76 4 27 Current Stage in InnovationDecision Process regarding Adobe Products ......... 77 4 28 Current Stage in InnovationDecision Process regarding Blogging .................... 77 4 29 Current Stage in InnovationDecision Process regarding Pod Casting ............... 77 4 31 Current Stage in InnovationDecision Process regarding Internet use for fundraising .......................................................................................................... 78 4 32 Skill level for technology based communication strategies ................................. 79 4 33 Relevance level for technology based communication strategies ...................... 79 4 34 Mean Weighted Discrepancy Scores .................................................................. 79

PAGE 12

12 Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science THE USE OF TECHNOLOGYBASED COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES FOR FUNDRAISING IN HEALTHRELATED NON PROFITS IN NORTH CENTRAL FLORIDA By Amanda Brumby May 2010 Chair: Nicole Stedman Major: Agricultural Education and Communication The weak economy has affected many individuals as well as businesses, and this is also the case with nonprofit organizations. NPOs rely on fundraising efforts to fund their organizational goals and therefore getting their message out to their desired publics is the key to their success. This study examined the current methods that NPOs use to disseminate messages to their publics, as well as finding which methods they do not utilize. Diffusion of Innovations (Rogers, 2009) was used as the theoretical framework for this study. The researc her used survey methodology to conduct this study and a questionnaire was created by the researcher and was distributed to 27 development officers of healthrelated NPOs in North Central Florida. Upon analyzing the results, it was found that email and us e of the Internet were the most used technology based communication methods used by the NPOs surveyed. Blogging and Pod Casting were among the least utilized technology based communication strategies. It was unknown to the researcher as to why these methods are not utilized. It was recommended by the researcher that further research be conducted in this field of study. Particularly, qualitative research was suggested in order to understand why

PAGE 13

13 certain strategies are utilized and others are not. It was also recommended by the research for NPOs to make use of more technology based communication strategies in order to make better use of funds and reach a more extensive audience.

PAGE 14

14 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Nonprofit organizations help those in need. These organizations are often funded by corporations as well as individuals. As the economy is in a state of crisis and everyone is watching every penny they sp end, charity is often the first to be cut. Since giving to charity is a luxury for most people, it is logical to understand why this would be the case. As individuals struggle financially, so do nonprofit organizations and therefore they are not able to help as many people as they once were. Nonprofit organizations are entities formed to provide social services rather than being formed to seek a profit (Connors, 2001). Nonprofit organizations have a deep and rich record. Historically, people were force d to tackle problems on their own and often found it useful to join with others in voluntary organizations to do so. The result was the creation of voluntary fire departments, schools, adoption societies, and many more organizations (Salamon, 1999, p. 11). This was because communities were formed before the government, and therefore, people had to come together to act upon the greater good of the people. Even after governments came into existence, moreover, Americans were often reluctant to use them, fearing the rebirth of monarchy, or bureaucracy. Therefore, citizens still had to take matters into their own hands until they could persuade their fellow citizens that government help was needed. Once created, these organizations then often continued in exis tence even after government entered the scene, frequently helping government meet a need (Salamon, 1999, p. 1112). Since nonprofit organizations have a long history, it is easy to see why they fit into society. They were started to fill a gap in which the government did not/could not fill, and this is still the case today. The market is excellent for handling those things we consume individually, such as shoes, cars, clothing, etcbut the market does not

PAGE 15

15 handle very well those things that can only be consumed collectively, such as clean air, national defense, or safe neighborhoods (Salamon, 1999, p. 12). These examples are a perfect way to demonstrate the distinct need for nonprofit organizations because these are commodities that everyone needs in order to survive. Nonprofit organizations allow groups of individuals to pool their resources to produce collective goods they mutually desire but cannot convince a majority of their countrymen to support (Salamon, 1999, p. 12). These organizations allow thes e groups to have support both financially and emotionally. The nonprofit sector functions as a first line of defense, a flexible mechanism through which people concerned about a social or economic problem can begin to respond immediately without having to convince a majority of their fellow citizens that the problem deserves a more general, governmental response, (Salamon, 1999, p. 15). The nonprofit sector in the United States, can be defined as a collection of entities that are organized, private, nonprof it distributing, self governing and voluntary, according to Salamon and Anheier (1997). A key feature that distinguishes nonprofit organizations from other organizations is that they do not receive a bulk of their income from the sale of goods and services in the market, but rather from dues and contributions of their members and supporters (Salamon & Anheier, 1997). Legally, nonprofit organizations are defined as an incorporated entity that qualifies for exemption from federal income tax under any of the t wenty six specific subsections of the Internal Revenue Code (Hopkins, 1987). Futhermore, ONeill (1989) defines nonprofit organizations as private organizations which serve a public purpose benefiting society. The rules concerning the creation of NPOs are essentially a subject for state laws. A few NPOs are chartered by the U.S. Congress, but nearly all are formed under

PAGE 16

16 state law. An NPO must be created in one of three forms: a corporation, an unincorporated association, or a trust, (Connors, 2001, p. 894). In many cases today, most nonprofit organizations are established as a special classification of corporations. A corporation is formed by filing a set of articles of incorporationsAn NPOs articles of organization and/or operational rules should contain provisions stating the organizations purposes and addressing the organizations structure and administration (Connors, 2001, p. 895). The articles of incorporation include an outline of the NPOs bylaws, board of directors, whether or not there w ill be members within their organization, committees, procedures, as well as other mandated inclusions, (Connors, 2001). Since nonprofit organizations are important as well as numerous in the United States, there are tax laws that are made specifically for this sector. Tax laws in the U.S. contain many sections where organizations can claim exemption from federal income taxes as nonprofit organizations (Salamon, 1999). Although there are many different types of nonprofit organizations, only public servin g organizations are labeled as tax exempt under Section 501(c)(3) of the federal tax law, according to Salamon (1999). In addition to being tax exempt from taxes themselves like all nonprofit organizations, 501(c)(3) organizations are also eligible to rec eive tax deductible gifts from individuals and corporations, (Salamon, 1999, p. 24). This allows the individuals as well as corporations to deduct their contributions from their personal income when reporting their taxes. To be eligible for this status, organizations must operate exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, literary, or educational purposes, (Salamon, 1999, p. 24).

PAGE 17

17 Nonprofit organizations are abundant in the United States, and the numbers have been constantly growing. Currently there are more than 1.5 million nonprofit organizations in the United States alone (Foundation Center, 2009). Many of these nonprofit organizations are registered as a 501(c)(3), which is probably the most commonly known nonprofit designation especially because there are many subgroups within this sector. Soup kitchens, hospitals, art galleries, universities, advocacy and civic action groups and museums are among the many different subgroups (Salamon, 1999). Health related nonprofit organizations engage i n health related activities, providing health care, administration of health care services, and health support services (Salamon and Anheier, 1996). Although many of these nonprofit organizations have strong ties with hospitals, they are not necessarily located in a hospital. Nonprofit organizations have a substantial share of the U.S. health care markets. They care for approximately 70% of all inpatient cases in acute care hospitals, and for half of the market for inpatient specialty mental health treatment and substance abuse treatment, (Frank & Salkever, 1994, p.129). These nonprofits are located throughout the state of Florida, as well as the United States, but this study specifically examines healthrelated nonprofits in North Central Florida. Health related nonprofit organizations, as well as the many other sectors of NPOs engage in fundraising in order to fund their organizations goals. Fundraising can be defined as 501(c)(3) organizations seeking gifts from various sources (National Society of Fund Raising Executives Institute, 1986). Since there are many different types of nonprofits, there are also many different terms for the employee/volunteer who

PAGE 18

18 oversees all of the fundraising efforts. For the purpose of this study, the person who manages fundraising will be referred to as the development officer. Fundraising relies heavily on the effective use of communication, especially in the world of nonprofits. Nonprofit organizations have begun to borrow proven marketing techniques from corporate Ameri ca because competition for donor dollars has heated up intensely, and fundraising techniques themselves in direct mail, TV, special events have become far more sophisticated (Troy, 2005). Through utilizing effective ways to communicate with their publ ics, nonprofit organizations have come to realize that proper use of public relation techniques is crucial to their success. Troy (2005) stated that public relations must build awareness of the organization and position it as a valuable contributor to society; create an environment to enhance fundraising opportunities among target audiences such as foundations, corporations, volunteers, and individual donors; and educate and persuade target audiences about an issue or cause. Diffusion of Innovations (Rogers, 1995) is concerned with the way in which a message is communicated through different channels. This is incorporated into nonprofits on a daily basis because their main goal is to share their message with their audiences. The rate at which individuals, or organizations, adopt a new idea is very different. Because of this, Diffusions of Innovations has incorporated adopter categories to identify this rate of the individual or organization. Skill is often considered when evaluating a new innovation. Whether or not an individual or organization uses a new idea is often dictated by the individuals skill base of this innovation. Relevancy is another component to this evaluation. If an individual or organization does not deem an innovation as relevant then they will not go the extra

PAGE 19

19 step to learn how to use the new product or service. These elements are crucial when examining the adoption and use of new technologies, whether in a nonprofit or corporate setting. Res earch Problem As nonprofit organizations have begun incorporating ideas and ways of communication from corporate America, they are experiencing changing communication channels. As technology is ever evolving, ways in which people communicate with one another are changing as well. Using technology to communicate is something that many corporations do on a daily basis, but nonprofit organizations have had a hard time keeping up with technology due to lack of resources and adoption practices. Nonprofits have limited resources they lack adequate time, workforce, skills and finance to achieve the mission they or society have established for then. As consequence, they must become experts at securing these additional staffing, skills, and financial resources, ( Baker, 2000, p. 273) This has especially affected fundraising within these nonprofit organizations. Organizations that rely primarily on traditional methods are finding it tougher to sustain fundraising and other forms of constituent support. Now, the data are beginning to amass on early adopter nonprofits that began incorporating the Internet into their operations a year or two ago. The numbers make a compelling case for groups to go online in a big way, especially in the current challenging environment for philanthropy (Bhagat, 2004). As indicated above, fundraising is a crucial part of a nonprofit organization and key to its survival. The current state of the economy impacted the success of fundraising efforts. The period of the past 16 months is already well chronicled in the popular lexicon as a recession. The recent data are consistent with the view that this recession will endure longer and be deeper and broader than most (Warsh, 2009, 3).

PAGE 20

20 With the economy being classified as in a recession, it is inevitable that the nonprofit sector will feel the effects of this. Development officers within the many nonprofits need to stay updated on what methods are effective in this tough economic time in order to keep their nonprofit afloat. In order for nonprofit organizations to stay alive, development officers need to be creative in their fundraising efforts. Many fundraising efforts (direct mail, telephone solicitation) have worked in the past, but since the economy has changed the world in many ways fundraising efforts also must change. Use of technology is one way to accomplish this. Technology can help you increase your donations, communicate better with your supporters, and strengthen your relationships with your highvalue donors (Blackbaud, 2005, 3). Integrating technology into fundraising allows organizations to manage relationships with their supporters more effectively, have better accountability and stewardship, allow for online donations and recurring giving, and maybe most importantly, save time (Blackbaud, 2005). Purpose and Objectives The purpose of this study was to examine the use of technology based communication strategies used by healthrelated nonprofit organizations in their fundraising campaigns. The following specific objectives will be addressed in this study: 1. to identify the extent that healthrelated NPOs use technology based communication strategies to disseminate messages, 2. to describe the differences which exist among healthrelated NPOs use of technology based communication strategies, and 3. to identify the current stage of healthrelated nonprofit organizations in North Central Florida, according to the InnovationDecision Process in regards to use of technology to disseminate information, and

PAGE 21

21 4. to describe the differe nces which exist among healthrelated NPOs current stage in the InnovationDecision Process, and 5. to describe the self reported skill of technology based communication strategies in fundraising, and 6. to describe the self reported relevancy of technology bas ed communication strategies in fundraising, and 7. to report the Mean Weighted Discrepency Scores for comparing skills and relevancy of technology based communication strategies in fundraising. Significance of Study As the economy has been in a state of cris is, this has, and will continue to have an effect on the nonprofit sector, due to the fact that nonprofit organizations rely on donations from their supporters. Researching the current techniques used by these nonprofits in this tough economic time will al low development officers to know and understand why certain communication methods are better than others when attempting to disseminate messages to their public. This study will benefit the healthrelated nonprofits in North Central Florida that are currently struggling to find the funds to continue their charitable work. They will be able to utilize the proper communication methods in order to reach their desired audience, and therefore, more successful in securing the needed funds. Focusing on areas of t echnology being utilized will provide a better understanding of the current status of nonprofits in regards to technology based communication. This study will gather the necessary data to better equip nonprofits for their future development efforts. By providing this information, it will allow development officers to understand the importance of choosing the proper method to deliver their message. This may then lead to reaching more audiences and eventually more funding.

PAGE 22

22 Definition of Terms 1. ADOPTER CATEGORIES the classifications of members of a social system on the basis of innovativeness; (1) innovators, (2) early adopters, (3) early majority, (4) late majority, and (5) laggards (Rogers, 2003) INNOVATORS high interest in new ideas, which leads t o quick adoption of new innovations (Rogers, 2003). EARLY ADOPTERS not too far ahead of the average individual, decreases uncertainty about a new idea by adopting it and then evaluating the innovation (Rogers, 2003). EARLY MAJORITY adopts new ideas jus t before the average member of a system (Rogers, 2003). LATE MAJORITY adopt new ideas just after the average member of a system, they are very skeptical about new ideas and are often pressured to try a new innovation (Rogers, 2003). LAGGARDS the last i n a social system to adopt an innovation (Rogers, 2003). 2. COMPATIBILITY the degree to which an innovation is perceived as being consistent with the existing values, past experiences, and needs of potential adopters, (Rogers, 1995, p.15) 3. COMMUNICATIONprocess by which participants create and share information with one another in order to reach a mutual understanding (Rogers, 1995, p.18). 4. COMMUNICATION CHANNELS the means by which messages get from one individual to another (Rogers, 1995, p.18). 5. COMPLE XITY the degree to which an innovation is perceived as difficult to understand and use (Rogers, 1995, p.16). 6. DEVELOPMENT OFFICERthe liaison between the nonprofit organization and its donor publics. 7. FUNDRAISINGthe seeking of gifts from various sources as conducted by 501(c)(3) organizations (National Society of Fund Raising Executives Institute, 1986). 8. HEALTH-RELATED NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONorganizations that engage in health related activities, providing health care, administration of health care serv ices, and health support services (Salamon and Anheier, 1996). 9. INNOVATION-DECISION PROCESS the process through which an individual (or other decisionmaking unit) passes from first knowledge of an innovation, to the

PAGE 23

23 formation of an attitude toward the innovation, to a decision to adopt or reject, to implementation and use of the new idea, and confirmation of this decision (Rogers, 1995, p.20). 10. MASS MEDIA CHANNELS means of transmitting that involved a mass medium, such as radio, television, newspapers, and so on, which enable a source of one or a few individuals to reach an audience of many (Rogers, 2003, p.18). 11. NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS (NPOS) private organizations which serves a public purpose benefiting society (ONeill, 1989) 12. NORTH CENTRAL FLORIDAth is area includes the counties of (1) Gadsen, (2) Leon, (3) Wakulla, (4) Jefferson, (5) Madison, (6) Taylor, (7) Hamilton, (8) Suwannee, (9) Lafayette, (10) Dixie, (11) Columbia, (12) Union, (13) Bradford, (14) Gilchrist, (15) Alachua, and (16) Levy, as def ined by the state of Florida (www.floridacountiesmap.com/northcentral.shtml). 13. OBSERVABILITY the degree to which the results of an innovation are visible to others (Rogers, 2003, p.16). 14. REINVENTION the degree to which an innovation is changed or modif ied by a user in the process of adoption and implementation (Rogers, 1995, p.17). 15. RELATIVE ADVANTAGE the degree to which an innovation is perceived as better than the idea it supersedes (Rogers, 1995, p.15) 16. TECHNOLOGY is a design for instrumental action that reduces the uncertainty in the cause effect relationships involved in achieving a desired outcome. A technology usually has two components: (1) a hardware aspect, consisting of the tool that embodies the technology as a material or physical object, and (2) a software aspect, consisting of the information base for the tool (Rogers, 2003). 17. TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION a decision to make full use of an innovation as the best course of action available (Rogers, 2003, p.21). 18. TRIALABILITY the degree to which an innovation may be experimented with on a limited basis (Rogers, 2003, p.16). Limitations The first limitation was the fact that the results of the study will be self reported. Because the fact that the participants will be filling out the questionnaire themselves leaves room for error and inaccurate results which can occur in the study. The results of

PAGE 24

24 the questionnaire are limited to development officers within healthrelated nonprofit organizations in North Central Florida. The questionnaire was designed by the researcher and will not have been used in previous research. The researcher used a webbased questionnaire in order to accommodate the participants being surveyed, which could have impacted the response rate and self selection bias. Assumptions The following assumptions were made by the researcher in conducting this study. The researcher assumed that the healthrelated nonprofit organizations participating in this study engaged in fundraising and have a development officer, whether employed or a volunteer. Also that healthrelated NPOs had development officer with access to the information needed in the study and were willing to share this information with the researcher. And the respondents were truthful in their answers to the survey instr ument. Summary Many nonprofit organizations have a hard time keeping up with technology due to the lack of resources, and this has especially affected fundraising efforts within these nonprofit organizations. In addition, the current state of the economy also had a large impact upon the success of fundraising efforts. As the economy has been in a state of crisis, this has, and will continue to have an effect on the nonprofit sector. The objectives of this study were to identify what methods are currently being used to disseminate messages within healthrelated nonprofit organizations; to determine if the benefits of using technology based communication strategies outweigh the costs as perceived by the nonprofit organizations, and to identify the current stage of healthrelated nonprofit organizations in North Central Florida, according to the Innovation-

PAGE 25

25 Decision Process in regards to use of technology to disseminate information. By researching the current techniques used by these nonprofits in this tough economic time, the results will allow development officers to know what communication methods are more successful when attempting to disseminate messages to their public.

PAGE 26

26 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE The nonprofit industry is one that works for the benef it of society, and therefore, is funded by the people it serves. The economy is in a state of crisis, and this has affected many industries including the nonprofit sector. With this impact, fundraising within nonprofits has gone through many changes in rec ent times, including the ways in which these nonprofits communicate their messages to their audiences. The objectives of this study are to identify the extent that healthrelated NPOs use technology based communication strategies to disseminate messages ; to describe the differences which exist among healthrelated NPOs use of technology based communication strategies; to identify the current stage of healthrelated nonprofit organizations in North Central Florida, according to the InnovationDecision Proc ess in regards to use of technology to disseminate information; to describe the differences which exist among healthrelated NPOs current stage in the InnovationDecision Process; to describe the self reported skill of technology based communication strat egies in fundraising; to describe the self reported relevancy of technology based communication strategies in fundraising; and to report the Mean Weighted Discrepancy Scores for comparing skills and relevancy of technology based communication strategies in fundraising. Theoretical Framework The guiding theoretical framework for this study is Diffusion of Innovations (Rogers, 1995). Diffusion is the process in which an innovation is communicated through certain channels over time among the members of a soc ial system. It is a special type of communication, in that the messages are concerned with new ideas (Rogers, 2003, p.5). Because diffusion deals with messages about new ideas, this also

PAGE 27

27 involves a certain degree of uncertainty in regards to the adoption of the new idea (Rogers, 1995). Getting a new idea adopted, even when it has obvious advantages, is difficult. Many innovations require a lengthy period of many years from the time when they become available to the time when they are widely adopted (Rogers, 1995, p.1). In regards to time, the speed in which an innovation is diffused is dependent on many factors. There is the obvious suggestion that the speed of diffusion is positively related to the competitiveness of the industry or market (Warner, 1974, p. 5). The adoption of an innovation is much faster in more competitive situations, whereas in more sheltered industries, the adoption process can take more time. Another theory that was considered for this study was Uses and Gratifications (Katz, Blu mler, & Gurevitch, 1973). This theory considers the audience analysis of their personal gratification once a certain innovation is used. For the purpose of this study, Diffusion of Innovations (Rogers, 1995) was a better framework for this study so it was used primarily. Elements of Diffusion The four main elements [of the diffusion process] are the innovation, communication channels, time, and the social system (Rogers, 1995, p.11). Innovations are ideas, practices, or objects that are seen as new to an individual or social system (Rogers, 1995). Innovations that are perceived by individuals as having greater relative advantage, compatibility, trialability, and observability and less complexity will be adopted more rapidly than other innovations (Roger s, 1995, p.16). Communication is the way in which individuals communicates the innovation to others, whereas the channel is the method in which individuals deliver the message. Time is considered as the period of time, which it takes an innovation to be co mmunicated and

PAGE 28

28 adopted or rejected. A social system is defined as a set of interrelated units that are engaged in joint problem solving to accomplish a common goal, (Rogers, 1995, p.23). All four of these elements are crucial in understanding the adoptio n and rejection process, but the idea of a social system is a key element. Diffusion is a kind of social change, defined as the process by which alteration occurs in the structure and function of a social system. When new ideas are invented, diffused, and adopted or rejected, leading to certain consequences, social change occurs (Roger, 1995, p.6). The element of a new idea is something that is different for individuals. The newness of the idea, practice or object for the individual determines the individuals reaction to it (Rogers, 1995). Newness of an idea or product is not necessarily related to knowledge. People can know about the idea or product for some time, but if they have not developed a favorable attitude, accepted or rejected it, the idea or product is still considered new to them (Rogers, 1995). Although innovations are often new ideas, there is also the idea of reinvention. Reinvention is when an innovation is changed or modified in some way by the user during the process of adoption (Roger, 1995). The idea of reinvention occurs more often than many realize. Although some innovations are impossible to reinvent, there are many innovations that are more flexible in nature and allow users to change the innovation to more suitable for their pur poses. Regardless of whether the innovation is new or a reinvention, questions regarding what the innovation is, how it works, why it works and the innovations consequences, advantages and disadvantages, often arise (Rogers, 1995).

PAGE 29

29 In the most recent cases technological innovations are the ones that have been analyzed in regards to diffusion. Although technology and innovations are often used synonymously, an innovation is not always a technological advance (Rogers, 1995). InnovationDecision Process The innovationdecision process is an informationseeking and informationprocessing activity in which an individual obtains information in order to gradually decrease uncertainty about the innovation (Rogers, 1995, p.2021). There are five main steps i n the innovation decision process: (1) knowledge, (2) persuasion, (3) decision, (4) implementation, and (5) confirmation (Rogers, 1995). During the innovationdecision process, the user can either choose to adopt or reject the innovation. This decision can also be changed at a later point (Rogers, 1995). The innovationdecision process can vary in the length of time that the individual takes to go through the process. It could take a few minutes to a few years, depending on the individual. Although many inn ovationdecisions are made at the individual level, this decision can also happen at an organizational level. When an innovation decision is made by a system, rather than by an individual, the decision process is more complicated because a number of indiv iduals are involved (Rogers, 1995, p.22). Adopter Categories The way in which to categorize individuals in regards to the innovationdecision process is by adopter categories. These adopter categories are identified as (1) innovators, (2) early adopters, (3), early majority, (4), late majority, and (5) laggards (Rogers, 1995). Innovators are individuals whose interests in new ideas lead them out of their local social system to more cosmopolitan social relationships (Rogers, 1995). These individuals often have many relationships with other innovators even if they are

PAGE 30

30 geographically distanced (Rogers, 1995). Many other prerequisites for innovators that include financial resources to allow them to try new innovations, even if they fail; high degree of technica l knowledge and comfort; ability to cope with high degree of uncertainty about an innovation; and respect by other members of a social system (Rogers, 1995). Innovators may also provide local trials for others who are skeptical of trying new innovations, s o that they can see how it works and how it can benefit their lives (Rollins, 1993). Early adopters are more a part of the local social system than innovators (Rogers, 1995). This is the group of individuals that adopters look to for advice on new innovati ons and often considered to be the individual to check with before trying a new idea (Rogers, 1995). Early adopters know that they are highly respected in the social circle, so they make informed decisions, all the while being more willing to try new innov ations before the mass majority. The early adopter decreases uncertainty about a new idea by adopting it, and then conveying a subjective evaluation of the innovation to near peers through interpersonal networks. In one sense, early adopters put their stamp of approval on a new idea by adopting it (Rogers, 1995, p.283). The early majority adopts new ideas just before the average member of a system (Rogers, 1995, p.283). Although these individuals interact with their peers, they do not hold positions as opinion leaders within their social systems (Rogers, 1995). Early majority individuals often deliberate before adopting a new idea, therefore, the innovationdecision period is longer that those of innovators and early adopters. Because of where the early majority lie on the adopter category scale, they are an important link in the diffusion process. They just before the majority of the social system

PAGE 31

31 but just after the first few to adopt a new innovation and the early majority makes up one third of all mem bers of a system (Rogers, 1995). Following the early majority is the late majority. The late majority adopt new ideas just after the average member of a system (Rogers, 1995, p.284). The late majority also makes up onethird of the social system, but it adopts new innovations for different reasons. Adoption may be both an economic necessity for the late majority and the result of increasing peer pressures (Rogers, 1995, p.284). The late majority is wary of new innovations, and the idea of peer pressur e is essential in the innovationdecision process for them. They also usually have less financial resources, so a great deal of uncertainty must be eliminated before they will adopt a new innovation (Rogers, 1995). Laggards are the final adopter category i n the diffusioninnovation process and also the final group of individuals to adopt a new innovation. They hold almost no opinion leadership and are the most localite of all adopter categories (Rogers, 1995). These individuals are seen to have very traditi onal values, and their decisions are often based on what has been done previously (Rogers, 1995). They tend to be very suspicious about new innovations as well as opinion leaders, and their innovationdecision process tends to be very lengthy (Rogers, 1995). In addition to adopter categories, the innovationdecision process is also measured by the rate of adoption. The rate of adoption is usually measured by the length of time required for a certain percentage of the members of a system to adopt an innovation (Rogers, 1995, p.23). This length of time varies for individuals, as well as organizations but in any case, it helps to saturate the channels with the message so that people receive it as much as possible. A study by Rollins (1993) concluded that not all

PAGE 32

32 adopters will use one information source exclusively to receive their information. By saturating multiple channels with the same message, it will allow a broad audience to receive the message, as well as individuals receiving the message multiple times. Communication Channels for Nonprofit Organizations Communication can be split into two parts the message or content, and the channel its transmitted on (Communication Improvement Free Resource Center, 2009). The channels are just as important as the content of communication because if the message is delivered in a way that is not appropriate for that particular audience or situation, the message may not be received well, or at all. Communication channels have both strengths and weaknesses and knowing these are key. A diverse array of communication techniques have been used by companies to disseminate their information. Some of these techniques are audio (tapes/CDs), videotape, CD ROM, letters, memos, reports, printed material, email, Internet, radio, TV, oneonone interaction, meetings, phone, and video conferencing (Features from Fastrak Consulting, 1998). Because nonprofits have the limitation of funds, resources and people, some of these techniques are not plausible, although they may be the best choice. Face to face communication is the most basic and traditional form of communication. As more communication up and down the line at work is done electronically, face to face discussion can easily fall by the wayside (Martin, 2007, 1). This basic form of communication is often the best way to get a response from the receiver of the message. Because the interaction is immediate and visual, both parties are able to feed off of body language and nonverbal cues. This face to face interaction allows a r elationship between the parties to be built. Once this foundation is

PAGE 33

33 established, it enables the other forms of communication. Having a personal connection builds trust and minimizes misinterpretation and misunderstanding (Martin, 2007, 4). Another form of communication is that of printed material, in the form of newsletters, brochures, pamphlets, books, magazines, and reports (Berndtson, 1970). These works can encompass the mission, vision and/or goals of an organization so that this information is easy to distribute to the public. These printed materials are often inexpensive to produce, and therefore, are widely used in nonprofit organizations. Because of the inexpensive nature of printed materials, the distribution is often wide and has the potential to reach community leaders (Berndtson, 1970). Email has quickly become one of the most popular ways in which to communicate. A recent report estimated that over 7 trillion emails were sent worldwide last yearand the average office worker new gets betw een 60200 messages a day, (Friedman, 2004). As this number continues to rise every day, it is important to note email as an effective way to communicate, whether internally or externally from the business. Email has become the way in which businesses, as well as individuals communicate with each other most of the time. It is a quick and easy way to communicate and allows individuals to cross borders without even leaving their office or home. Traditionally, techniques like direct mail, phone calls, and sp ecial events are still used in many nonprofit organizations in todays society (Hager, Rooney & Pollak, 2002). Many nonprofits rely on a mixture of techniques and the traditional methods still apply. Since there is a diverse audience that nonprofits must r each, they need to make use of many different tactics so that they can capture a large section of their target public. There are many different approaches to fundraising, just as there are many different

PAGE 34

34 organizations that populate the nonprofit sector, and this fact complicates efforts to understand fundraising (Hager, Rooney & Pollak, 2002). In addition to traditional methods of communication, the Internet has increasingly become the most common way of communication in many industries. Although many nonpr ofit organizations do in fact have websites, these websites could be used for many reasons. Goatman & Lewis (2007) found that websites are also a communication tool used by nonprofit organizations. This study found that charities consider the most fundamental purpose of their websites to be providing information to raise awareness of the charity and its mission. Features that require greater technical capability such as transaction and interaction are much lower priorities (Goatman & Lewis, 2007, p. 37). By using the Internet as a communication tool these nonprofit organizations are able to break down geographic walls since they can communicate to more than just the people within one community. They can utilize the Internet in order to communicate their me ssages as well as many other applications. Technology in Nonprofits The Internet has encroached upon many industries in the United States, and that includes fundraising. Waters (2007) study aimed to evaluate how nonprofit organizations currently utilize the Internet as a communication tool. He used the Chronicle of Philanthropy to get a random sample of nonprofits and then analyzed the websites. They were evaluated on the concepts of accountability, fundraising practices, and interactive communication str ategies. The results concluded that top rated nonprofits include their annual reports, goals, and mission statements on their websites, and lower rated nonprofits often use a sales approach by using technology and terminology to process online donations (W aters, 2007).

PAGE 35

35 The use of the Internet as a fundraising tool increased dramatically after the terrorist attacks in NYC on September 11, 2001. After these attacks people wanted to contribute, financially, in order to help those that were affected and more than $100 million was collected for disaster relief (Waters, 2007). This also came with more and more nonprofits allowing donors to contribute online. Prior to 2001, roughly 50% of the nonprofit organizations on the Philanthropy 400organizations had onli ne donation capabilities. By the end of 2001, the number had risen to 80% Currently, 95% of Philanthropy 400 organizations accept online donations (Waters, 2007, p.60). Since the Internet has become a major way to do business today, websites are a huge part of this process. Sargeant, West & Jay (2007) examined the relational content of nonprofit Internet sites. After realizing the significant impact the Internet has on todays society, the researchers thought that it would also have a significant impact on fundraising within nonprofits. The researchers found that accessibility, accountablilty, education, interaction and empowerment are significantly correlated with the number of new donors a site is able to attract, and that accessibility, accountabilit y, and education are also highly correlated with the total value of online donations offered (Sargeant, West, & Jay, 2007, p.141). In the case of the sample websites, it was found that education and accessibility were the only well developed portions, leaving out accountability. They found that customization was not correlated with performance of donors but this was thought to be a result of the fact that not many nonprofits have the resources and capability to truly customize the experience when a donor v isits the website.

PAGE 36

36 The researchers suggested that if nonprofits focus on enhancing each of these components, they will be more successful. Nonprofits should make it easy to give, offering a facility to make a donation or a link to such a facility on ever y page of the site. It is essential that donors find it easy to navigate to the giving section of the site at the point at which they are motivated to give (Sargeant, West, & Jay, 2007, p.151). Technology is changing so fast it has become almost impossi ble to keep up. Every year something new hits the market; whether it's the coolest gadget or the next version of a critical software application, [and] nonprofits are not immune to the changing societal landscape. Technology has fundamentally altered the w ay people interact, and nonprofit organizations need to adapt to the changing conversation in order to maintain and advance fundraising efforts (Guidestar, 2007, 1). Some fundraising methods that are suggested for nonprofits to utilize are highlighted in an article by Guidestar (2007). Multi channel fundraising has been suggested for nonprofit organizations to allow multiple ways to contact their audience in order to increase the saturation of the message. Constituents today get information from a vari ety of sources. Some may read the local paper in the morning, check the website of a national news organization during the day, and watch television news in the evening (Guidestar, 2007, 3). The key to accomplishing this successfully is that the message stays the same. No matter what form or how many times the message is delivered, it needs to be consistent so that individuals constantly hear/see the same thing and do not become confused (Guidestar, 2007). This does not mean that the call to action has t o be the same for each channel that is used because all channels are not the correct vehicle for all call to action requests (Guidestar, 2007).

PAGE 37

37 Social media is also a suggested way for nonprofit organizations to communicate with their prospective donors. Although social media are seen as social networking, they are much more than this. [Social media] encompasses all online tools designed to share content, including social networking, blogs, and wikis, to name a few, (Guidestar, 2007, 6). Social media allow for global convergence between many organizations and their audiences, since it allows for twoway communication. These new communication mediums do not displace the traditional methods that have worked for years but rather add to the pool of communication choices, (Guidestar, 2007, 6). In addition to strong communication with donors, social accountability is a key to success for nonprofit organizations. Many nonprofits know they need to demonstrate financial accountability to their board of dir ectors, but many forget to expand accountability including how specific gifts are used to donors and constituents, (Guidestar, 2007, 10). This allows for transparency between the nonprofit organization and its audience, and when this is achieved, tr ust and stronger relationships are built. Constituents want to know where their donations went, how they were used, and what impact t hey made, (Guidestar, 2007, 11). Fundraising Fundraising is the act of soliciting for financial support for a noncom mercial cause (BusinessDictionary, 2009). This can be by an individual but is mostly referred to in reference to organizations. Nonprofit organizations utilize fundraising as a tool to gain financial support to fund their goals. Fundraising can come in many forms, from a school fundraiser to a special event hosted year after year, these are tailored to the audience that they are intended to reach. Each organization is different in the ways they

PAGE 38

38 choose to fundraise but one thing they all have in common is that they need to be building a donor base. In addition to gaining financial support, fundraising is also about building relationships. The only way for an organization to raise money continuously is by developing a donor base that is loyal to the organizat ion and this is done by building relationships (Klein, 2001). Focusing on building a donor base rather than on simply raising money means that sometimes you will undertake a fundraising strategy that does not raise money in the first year (Klein, 2001, p. 13). Fundraising must constantly evolve in order to be successful. Although many of the techniques and strategies have been around for many years, there are also new advancements that are used within the fundraising world. An emerging strategy for many nonprofits is to have a fundraising staff. This may seem surprising but since nonprofits operate on such a small budget, many jobs within the organization are combined so that one employee has the responsibility of many jobs. This is becoming a struggle for the current nonprofits and therefore they are utilizing the idea of having a staff member(s) solely for fundraising. While this is not technically a new approach, the idea of hiring a professional fundraiser has become the trend. This can be done one of two ways; first, the organization can hire someone on as the full time or part time fundraising professional for that particular organization and second, the organization can hire contract workers to do the fundraising work. Hiring a fulltime or part t ime staff person allows the organization the benefit of having that professional inhouse and available at all times, while a contracted professional is only

PAGE 39

39 available for the time they are paid. Contracted professionals are usually hired to do things such as writing grant proposals, organize special events and conducting other essential funddevelopment tasks (Hager, Rooney & Pollak, 2002). There are times in the life of almost every group when a fundraising consultant or trainer can be very helpful (Kl ein, 2001, p.325). The contractors can train and motivate people, create fundraising plans, set up a database, conduct campaigns, assist board members, recommend structural changes, help hire fundraising staff, as well as many other things. There are limit ations to what the consultants can do. They are unable to actually solicit money, use their personal contacts, raise money or guarantee their work (Klein, 2001). Hager, Rooney & Pollak (2002) also found that contracting with professional fundraising firm s to solicit funds and hold special events on behalf of the organization has become a current trend in fundraising. They surveyed nonprofits and found that 8% of those surveyed did use professional fundraisers. Although this number seems low, it increased by two percent over the previous year (Hager, Rooney & Pollak, 2002). This use was also found to more prevalent in some sectors of fundraising, than in others. For instance, education nonprofits are four times more likely to hire a professional fundraising firm than health nonprofits, (Hager, Rooney & Pollak, 2002). Direct mail Direct mail is a marketing tool that uses a mail service to deliver promotional material to the target audience (Entrepreneur, 2009). This method of fundraising encompasses many different marketing materials such as brochures, catalogs, postcards, newslett ers and sales letters. By using direct mail, the organization is able to

PAGE 40

40 control many aspects, including who receives the message, what is included and when the message arrives (Entrepreneur, 2009). Direct mail is the most used means used by nonprofit organizations to recruit new donors (Warwick, 2009). Although direct mail is extremely time consuming and detail oriented, it is the most cost effective way in which to gain new donors (Warwick, 2009). This method also shows the most success in the longrun so immediate results are not always showcased. This is often because donors gained from direct mail campaigns become major donors with proper stewardship processes. Special Events Special events are a common way for nonprofits to fundraise. These are soc ial gatherings of all sorts that expand the reputation of the organization, they serve more as informational event than a money making event, although they do usually produce funds for the organization (Klein, 2001). Special events are used to build upon r elationships that are already created, as well as build new relationships. Because of the variety of special events, as well as the flexibility, they are great ways to allow people to interact with other donors of the cause. These events have three main goals; to generate publicity, the raise visibility of the organization, and to bring in (new) money (Klein, 2001). Phone Phone fundraising is a successful method of fundraising. Although many complain about getting phone calls asking for support, this conti nues to be one of the most successful ways to fundraise. Phonea thons continue to pull a greater percent of response than direct mail, and they are an excellent way of reaching a large number of people with a (somewhat) personal message (Klein, 2001). The key to a successful

PAGE 41

41 phone fundraiser, is to make it personal. By appealing to a specific audience, it allows the volunteer, who is making the phone calls, to engage the listener and gain their support. Preparation is essential when putting together a phone fundraiser. This includes preparing a list of people who will be called, setting a date, writing a script, writing letters to those people who need more information about the organization/cause, determining how many volunteers you need, find a place, and recruiting volunteers (Klein, 2001). Personal Solicitation A traditional, but effective, method of fundraising is personal solicitation. Asking for a donation in person is one of the most effective ways to fundraise. If you ask someone you know for a gift they could afford to a cause they like there is a 50% change they will give something. Of the 50% that say yes to your request, half of them will give you the amount you ask forthis is a much higher response rate than you can get with any other kind of fundraising (Klein, 2001). Although this is one of the most effective ways to fundraise, it is also the most difficult strategies to implement. Asking someone for money is an uncomfortable situation, therefore, it takes experience and confidence to do this well. One way to use the traditional method of personal solicitation, is that of door to door canvassing. Canvassing is a technique that involves a team of people from your organization going door to door requesting contributions for your groups work (Klein, 2001). This is best utilized when the work that the organization is doing directly affects those that are being solicited for money. By canvassing those who are affected, it is more likely that financial donations will be given. Demographics are key in this method of fundraising. Without the proper research, the fundraiser could be a failure.

PAGE 42

42 Major Gifts Major gifts are also part of the fundraising process. Major gifts are relative to the organization, therefore, they fluctuate in amount. For one organization a major gift could be $1,000 and for another it could be nothing less than $10,000. In a major gift campaign, it is important to set goals. Setting goals allows the entire organization to work together towards the same thing. Once again, these goals are relative to the organization, just as the amount of a major gift is. A list of potential donors should be compiled before solicitation begins as well (Klein, 2001). Once goals are set and a list of prospective donors is made, it is then ti me to solicit. While the campaign is in motion, regular meetings should be held to stay focused, and a celebration should be held at the conclusion of the campaign to announce the amount raised, as well as recognize those major donors (Klein, 2001). Use of Technology in Fundraising The Internet has changed the world of fundraising tremendously. More than 50 million Americans use the Internet, and this number continues to grow every day (Klein, 2001). Because of this statistic, it is important to reflect this in fundraising efforts otherwise a large audience will be ignored. Barrett, Balloun & Weinstein (2005) found that nonprofit organizations need to focus on developing a creative climate and learning orientation; continually scan their environments for new market information, act upon this information, and disseminate the knowledge throughout the organization; act proactively to use this knowledge to introduce new ideas and techniques; and use crossfunctional, empowered groups to analyze, create, and impl ement marketing responses into dynamic environments.

PAGE 43

43 Websites One way in which to stay connected with the audience constantly is by using a website. Websites are a wonderful way to keep the audience informed on current issues as well as a large contribut or to the fundraising industry. Olsen, Keevers, Paul & Covington (2001) found that most nonprofit organizations currently have websites. These sites are used for sharing information with those already interested in the organizations, as well as those who w ould like to know more. The key component to a website is to keep the content fresh and upto date. Olsen, Keevers, Paul, & Covington (2001) stated that most of the sites that were studies did provide useful and important information about the organizati ons purpose. For instance, for healthrelated causes, educational information was available to the visitors of the site on that specific health issue. This information was educational in that it discussed the health issue as well as treatments and preventative measures, if appropriate (Olsen, Keevers, Paul, & Covington, 2001). Contact information is often included on the website as well. This is true for both national and local chapters. Phone numbers are often listed, along with email addresses, and phy sical addresses, although this is not always the case. Olsen, Keevers, Paul, & Covington (2001) found that most websites lacked the source of twoway communication. It was suggested that in addition to hosting a website for the nonprofit organization, that the organization also develops an email strategy. Ingenhoff & Koelling (2008) found that the potential of the Internet is still not being utilized to it full capacity. They found that although many nonprofit organizations use a website to convey inform ation to visitors and to ask for the visitors information for further contact, they miss out on the opportunity to build relationships through twoway

PAGE 44

44 communication. They suggest that technologies such as forums, chat rooms, user surveys, call back options podcasts and blogs should be utilized more to enhance relationships (Ingenhoff & Koelling, 2008). E mail E mail is one of the most common methods that utilize the Internet to fundraise. This encompasses the traditional method of direct mail, but allows t he process to move faster, as well as serve a larger audience for less money. In terms of price, it is probably the only form of direct marketing that will cost you only $10 to reach one thousand people interested in what you have to say (Burko, 2009). A lthough email does have many similarities to traditional direct mail, it should not be assumed that the same approach can be used. Instead, email should be considered an additional mode of communication and seen as a complement to the strategies already utilized (Olsen, Keevers, Paul, & Covington, 2001). Email, should be used to further develop relationships with donors, as well as build new relationships. This process of integrating email campaigns into the fundraising strategy is easy and allows for m uch creativity. E mails can be sent to any or all of the email addresses that are collected by the organization and can contain text, images as well as links to videos and other sites. Most nonprofit organizations use email to send their newsletters, promotional ads and thank you messages (Burko, 2009). Online donations In addition to hosting a website, developing an email strategy, creating a way for donors to give online is pertinent. Perhaps the most common and effective way to let donors to give is by allowing them to donate money online using their credit or debit

PAGE 45

45 card (Hooper, & Stobart, 2002). Online giving has grown in the past several years and people are increasingly gaining confidence in donating money online. Olsen, Keevers, Paul, & Covington (2001) found that from a donors perspective, many nonprofit organizations made it neither easy or compelling to donate online. Of the 14 sites studied, there was not one that stood out as a model website. This is a problem that needs to be addressed i f the organizations want to continue to increase their funding. From a fundraising perspective it needs to be a top priority to enhance the online experience for the visitors. Olsen, Keevers, Paul, & Covington (2001) recommend that the fundraisers focus on enhancing donation visibility, streamlining and improving giving processes, actively nurture personalized donor relationships and growing. In the past several years, nonprofit organizations have made this a priority. Waters (2007) found that organizations used a variety of ways to let the visitors know about ways to donate. The vast majority (70.6% ) placed a link to the online donations page on the sites permanent menu; others used graphics to highlight their online donation capabilities (9.4% ) and tex t boxes that are not part of the permanent menu (8.7 % ). Nine organizations (5.6% ) had the ability to collect donations online but did not provide a link to it on their home page, and nine organizations did not use the Internet for fundraising (Waters, 2007, p. 66). Waters (2007) also found that many nonprofit organizations are following suit of other for profit companies and allowing a third party to process their donations. As much as 30% reported that the organization was using a third party (Waters, 2007). When using this technique, it is important to be sure that the processing is done on a secure,

PAGE 46

46 encrypted server. Whether the nonprofit organization processed their own donations, or th ey used a third party, it was found that the website would send an email confirmation receipt as well as provide a printable receipt once the transaction was completed (Waters, 2007). Although people are gaining confidence in online giving, many are sti ll not comfortable with the idea of donating money online. Since this is the case, it is important for nonprofit organizations to provide other ways to donate in addition to donating online. Waters (2007) found that 75% provided other ways in which to donate if the individual did not feel comfortable doing so online. Many organizations provided an address that donations could be sent through the mail and/or offered a telephone number that could process credit card donations (Waters, 2007). Information on pl anned giving, stocks, corporate matching gifts, and inkind donations was also often provided on the sampled websites (Waters, 2007). Stewardship Fundraising is much more than asking for financial support. It is about building relationships so that a onetime donor turns into a habitual donor, or a major donor. This act of cultivating relationships and building upon them is known as stewardship. Some nonprofit organizations have the ability to have a full time staff member dedicated to stewardship, but this is not always the case. In many nonprofits, the job of stewardship falls upon the fundraiser. There are many ways in which to carry out stewardship, and like fundraising, it is unique to each individual. Some donors do not like to be recognized for their contributions, and others do not mind to be recognized. In each situation, the donor has to be thanked for their support, whether it was a $10 donation or a $100,000 donation.

PAGE 47

47 The ways in which to thank these individuals, or companies, are different but they must be thanked. One way to achieve stewardship is by keeping in contact through email. This can be as simple as keeping a database of each donors email address and emailing them the monthly newsletter. Waters (2007) found that over 88% of the organizations sampled, did keep a collection of email addresses that was utilized for stewardship purposes. Requesting feedback from donors also allows for the stewardship to continue. Donors like to know that they are personally involved in the organizati on that they are contributing to and by asking them for feedback, will allow them to feel this way. Other than email, there are also functions within the actual website that can be utilized for stewardship purposes. Visitors of the website could use an information request form to ask specific questions about the organization that are not addressed on the website. Also, discussion forums and live chat opportunities are often utilized on websites (Waters, 2007). These functions allow individuals to engage in active conversation with staff or volunteers from the nonprofit organization, as well as other visitors of the website. Although all of these methods will allow the donor to feel more engaged with the organization, there was no evidence of acknowledgm ent for the donation on the websites. Gratitude towards donors was not shown on the website (Waters, 2007). Of the organizations that did acknowledge donors, organizations thanked corporate sponsors (100% ), foundations (68% ), major gift donors (28% ), and every individual donor (4% ) (Waters, 2007, p. 67).

PAGE 48

48 Summary Chapter 2 explained the theoretical framework of the study as well as discussed previous findings from research on this topic. Diffusions of Innovations (Rogers, 2003) is the theory that was utilized in this study. Diffusions examines the pace at which an individual, or organization, adopts an innovation. This chapter also discussed the empirical findings on the following subjects; communication channels, technology in nonprofit organizations, fundraising, and the use of technology within fundraising.

PAGE 49

49 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Introduction Chapter 1 described the history of nonprofit organizations within the United States, with a particular focus on healthrelated nonprofit organizations in North Central Florida. These nonprofit organizations often have limited resources and have a tough tim e with fundraising. In addition, the current state of the economy has a large impact on these fundraising efforts. The objectives of this study were also outlined in this chapter. By researching the current techniques used by these nonprofits in this tough economic time, the results will allow development officers to know what communication methods are more successful when attempting to disseminate messages to their public. Chapter 2 discussed previous research that has been conducted in this area as well as the theoretical framework. The theory base for this study was the Diffusion of Innovations (Rogers, 2003). Diffusion examines the way in which a message is disseminated to a target audience. Diffusions also takes adoption rates into consideration by ca tegorizing individuals, as well as organizations. This chapter also discusses previous findings on the following subsections; communication channels for nonprofit organizations, technology in nonprofits, and fundraising. Chapter 3 outlines the methodol ogy utilized in this study. Specifically, this chapter expands upon the subjects of research design, population, instrumentation, and data collection. The purpose of this quantitative study was to examine what uses of technology are currently being used by nonprofit organizations in regards to fundraise.

PAGE 50

50 Research Design The research design was a quantitative study which utilized convenience sampling methodology. Gall, Gall and Borg (2007) describe convenience sampling as a sample that suits the purpos es of the study and that is convenient (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2007, p.175). For this study, the population of interests encompassed the Community Health Charities identified by the 2009 University of Florida Community Campaign. Due to the subject matter the Borich Scale was utilized in the questionnaire. A Borich scale is used so that respondents provide data that can be weighted and ranked in order of priority so that responses are linked to a practical decision framework for program improvement (Bor ich, 1980, 39). Population The population for this study consisted of development officers of healthrelated nonprofit organizations in North Central Florida. More specifically, the development officers at the Community Health Charities identified by the 2009 UF Community Campaign Agencies. This population was chosen because of their role in the fundraising process within the nonprofit organization. These individuals represent the people who are actively seeking to reach their target audience in order to gain funding for their organizations goals. The total number of participants that were eligible for this study equaled 31. Although this was the total number of eligible participants, it was also important to take nonresponders into account because not all 31 identified participants provided useable data. The total number of useable questionnaires was 13. Dillman (2009) stated that nonresponse error occurs when the people selected for the survey who do not respond are different from those who do respond in a way that it is important to the study (Dillman, 2009, p. 17). There are several things that can be

PAGE 51

51 done to prevent this issue, although these things will not cure this problem completely. Using things such as follow up reminders is an integral part of minimizing nonresponse error. When making use of follow up reminders, the key is to use them correctly. The frequency and wording of these reminders are something to consider. When reminders are sent, they need to be worded carefully and in ways that explain why they are being sent (Dillman, 2009, p. 361). Other errors that were considered in this study were coverage, sampling and measurement error. Coverage error happens when not every member of the population have a nonzero chance of being chosen ( Rogers, 1995). Since this was a convenience sample this was a factor in this study. Sampling error is simply that there is a limitation because not every person in the population is sampled. Again, this relates to using a convenience sample for this study. Measurement error occurs because respondents answers can be inaccurate. This could be due to poor wording in the instrument or other aspects of the questionnaire construction. Using a modified version demographic instrument, the independent variables of gender, age, education level, and size of nonprofit organization were collected. Once this data was collected, the results were analyzed to interpret the findings. Instrumentation This study utilized a descriptive survey. The researcher found several previously developed questionnaires that were closely related to the elements that needed to be measured for this study. The researcher then adapted those questionnaires to more closely fit with the objectives of this study. The first five questions are general kn owledge questions about the nonprofit organization. These are followed by a series of questions regarding use of and

PAGE 52

52 knowledge of several technology based communication strategies (Adobe products, internet, etc.). Que stions regarding current stages in the innovation decision process are also asked. These are then followed by general knowledge and demographic questions about the development officer. To ensure that the instrument measured the construct appropriately, v alidity and reliability were issues the researcher addressed. Ary, Jacobs, and Razavieh (2002) describes external validity as the generalizability or representativeness of the findings (p. 296). Specifically, external validity as related to a population is concerned with identifying other populations in which the results could be generalized to (Ary, Jacobs, and Razavieh, 2002). To control this issue, a population was chosen that is representative of the problem. By doing this, it will allow similar groups to identify with the results. Internal validity was also addressed in this study. As described by Ary, Jacobs, and Razavieh (2002), internal validity is the extent to which the changes observed in a dependent variable are, in fact, caused by the independent variable(s) (p. 281). In this study, nine independent variables have been identified. These nine variables are: gender, age, years experience in the field, size of the nonprofit organization, education level, comfort level with technology, resources perceptions, and location of the nonprofit. Since the instrument was adapted from previous questionnaires, the greatest threat to internal validity was instrumentation. To further examine the validity of the instrument, a panel of experts was used to analyze the instrument. These experts consisted of faculty members at the University of

PAGE 53

53 Florida located within the Department of Agricultural Education and Communication as well as Family, Youth, and Community Sciences. Content validity is the degree to whi ch the results from an instrument are representative of a defined domain (Ary, Jacobs, and Razavieh, 2002). In relation to this study, content validity was controlled through the panel of experts. This panel reviewed the instrument before it was subjected to the pilot test, as well as before it was given to the population. Construct validity is described as measuring what the instrument says it is (Ary, Jacobs, and Razavieh, 2002). This threat will be addressed through both the panel of experts, as well as the pilot test. The instrument the researcher utilized was made up of multiple questions as well as formats. There were nine Level questions, which asked participants to indicate which level they were currently at regarding different issues. There were six Ranking questions, six Likert Scale questions, five Yes/No questions, and one Borich style question. These were followed by five demographic questions. Data Collection The first step in this process was to gain approval through the University of Florida Institutional Review Board (ARB 02). The proposal was approved (Protocol #2009U 1028) allowing for the study to continue ( Appendix A ). Following IRB approval, but before the data collection, a pilot test was conducted. The pilot test was conducted using employees from the several chapter s of March of Dimes located in North Central Florida. The pilot test included 13 participants. The results from the pilot study were analyzed by examining the frequencies and descriptive statistics in SPSS 17.0 for Windows. After the pilot results were collected and analyzed, the panel of experts reviewed the instrument again. Once the instrument was reviewed for the second time

PAGE 54

54 and in conjunction with participant feedback, the researcher concluded that no changes needed to be made for the actual study. Once the pilot test was completed, contact information for development officers in healthrelated nonprofit organizations was obt ained. In order to better suit the population and content, a Web survey was utilized. Web surveys are said to offer a great deal of potential for very little cost (Dillman, 2009). According to Dillmans Tailored Design Method, it is suggested that distributing the questionnaire through a system of five contacts is recommended. These five contacts include a prenotice letter, a questionnaire, a thank you letter, a replacement questionnaire, and a final contact (Dillman, 2009). Dillman (2009) states that web surveys are much like traditional mail surveys but they have to be handled differently because of the different technologies used. The major difference between a web survey and a mail survey is the way in which it is delivered. A mail survey is delivered to the participant but a web survey essentially asks the participant to go and get the survey themselves, via a website. This can make some participants uncomfortable because they may be unfamiliar with the technology; therefore, making this task easy and comfortable is extremely important (Dillman, 2009). As with traditional survey methods, the web survey also has to make the experience personal. If the participant does not feel as though they can contribute, they will often not participate, therefore, personalization is crucial in this process. By personalizing the survey it establis hes a connection between the surveyor and the respondent that is necessary to invoke social exchange, and it draws the respondent out of the group (Dillman, 2009, p.279).

PAGE 55

55 The timing for webbased surveys is quicker than the timing for traditional mail surveys. This is due to the fact that emails are often dismissed or deleted quicker than a physical piece of mail. Although the timing for web surveys has not been discovered, the timing is something that depends on the nature of the survey and the populat ion being surveyed (Dillman, 2009). The time of the day in which the e mail arrives is also a concern with webbased surveys. There is some indication that email invitations are most successful if they are delivered to recipients inboxes early in the morning (Dillman, 2009, p.280). Day 1: email prenotice Day 3: email questionnaire Day 14: email thank you letter/reminder letter Day 16: reminder email to only those who have not responded Day 38: e mail reminder as well as phone calls to individuals w ho had not responded (Christmas holidays fell inbetween this time) Day 44: email was sent to only those who had not responded A personalized email letter was sent to each development officer (Appendix B ). The intent of this letter was to inform the participants that an email would be arriving in their inbox within the next few days and that their response would be greatly appreciated (Dillman, 2009). The second contact contained the Webbased surveys sent via email (Appendix C) This email also incl uded a short message explaining why their response is important to the study as well as instructions on how to access and complete the questionnaire (Dillman, 2009). In the event that there was invalid email addresses or no email addresses for some par ticipants, a paper questionnaire would be distributed to them. This was not the case in this study as an email address was obtained for each participant.

PAGE 56

56 The third contact was made via email and included a thank you letter to those who had completed the questionnaire as well as a reminder for those who had not completed the instrument ( Appendix D ). The fourth contact was made and was only sent to individuals who had not completed the questionnaire. This email contained the link to the questionnaire and urged the participant to complete the survey (Dillman, 2009) ( Appendix E ). After the last reminder email was sent, it was evident that many participants had disregarded the emails or did not receive them for some reason because of the low number of responses. Due to lack of participation in this study, the researcher decided to make phone calls in addition to sending another round of emails to those who had not responded (Appendix F) After calling those who did not participate, another round of emails was distributed due to the fact that many participants could not be contacted (Appendix G) After only receiving one additional response, the researcher made another round of phone calls and emails. This attempt yielded in more responses with a final c ount of 15 completed questionnaires. The research decided to cut off the data collection due to time constraints. After the questionnaires were examined, two participants had to be discarded due to incomplete questionnaires. This yielded 13 useable participants. Data Analysis Data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) 17.0 for Windows. To analyze objective one and three, means ( m ), standard deviations ( SD), and frequencies ( f ) were identified to the extent that healthrelated NPOs use technology based communication strategies to disseminate messages. To analyze

PAGE 57

57 objective two and four, an ANOVA was conducted. This w as done to identify the Fratio (F), degrees of freedom (df), and the significance (sig). Objectives five, six and seven dealt with Borich Scale questions. They were all analyzed by identifying means ( m ). Because nonresponse error exists within all types of survey research, this error should be addressed. Based on Ary, Jacobs, and Razaviehs (2002) recommendation a test/retest was utilized. Several questions were analyzed for a Cronbachs Alpha in order to verify reliability. In the situation of adopter categories (questions 10, 14, 17, and 20 on questionnaire; Appendix A ), Cronbachs Alpha was significant (.469, n= 4). The decision process (questions 8, 12, 16, 19, and 22; Appendix A ) was also examined in t erms of reliability and it yielded a Cronbachs Alpha of a significant value as well (.595). The other question that was examined was the Borich Scale question (question 27; Appendix A) and it resulted in significant levels as well (Part 1 = .577 and Part 2 = .820) At the conclusion of the data collection procedures, 14 (51.8%) of the development officers responded. This response rate was acceptable because Kittleson (1997, as cited by Cook, Heath and Thompson, 2000) stated one can expect between a 25 and 30% response rate from an email survey when no follow up takes place. Followup reminders will approximately double the response rate for email surveys (p.196, as cited by Cook, Heath and Thompson, 2000). Therefore, a 51.8% response rate was deemed to be acceptable based on the literature and the prior response rate trends from the sampling frame. Inferential statistics are based on the fact that the sample is a representation of the population and that because of this, generalizations can be made (Lane, 2003)

PAGE 58

58 Because of the small sample size of this study, generalizations cannot be made for the entire population. Chapter Summary This chapter described the methods used to study the research objectives that were outlined in Chapter 1. Chapter 3 dis cussed the research design, population, instrumentation, data collection and data analysis. The research design used in this study was a quantitative method that utilized survey methodology. Within this study, the independent variables were gender, age education level, size of nonprofit organization, years experience in the field, comfort level with technology, resources, perceptions, and location of the nonprofit organization. Reliability and validity were discussed in this chapter as well as description of the pilot test and questionnaire methods.

PAGE 59

59 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Chapter 1 described the history of nonprofit organizations within the United States, with a particular focus on healthrelated nonprofit organizations in North Central Florida. These nonprofit organizations often have limited resources and have a tough time with fundraising. In addition, the current state of the economy has a large impact on these fundraising efforts. The objectives of this study were also outlined in this chapter. By researchin g the current techniques used by these nonprofits in this tough economic time, the results will allow development officers to know what communication methods are more successful when attempting to disseminate messages to their public. Chapter 2 discussed previous research that has been conducted in this area as well as the theoretical framework. The theory supporting this study was the Diffusion of Innovations (Rogers, 2003). Diffusion provides an explanations for the manner in which an innovation is diff used through a special system. This includes messages about the innovation rates of adoption and a classification system for adopter categories. This chapter also discussed previous findings on the following subsections; communication channels for nonprof it organizations, technology in nonprofits, and fundraising. Chapter 3 outlined the methodology utilized in this study. Specifically, this chapter expanded upon research design, population, instrumentation, and data collection. The purpose of this quant itative study was to examine the extent or level at which technology is currently being used by nonprofit organizations in regards to fundraising This chapter presents the findings of the study begi nning with a description of the population, as well as the findings of each objective The population of this study

PAGE 60

60 consisted of 28 development officers in healthrelated nonprofit organizations in North Central Florida. At the conclusion of the data collection procedures, outlined in chapter 3, there was a response rate of 46.4% ( n =13). Demographics Demographics were collected in the questionnaire and are provided in order to characterize the responses of the study These demographics included age, education level, classification, years working in organizati on, and operating budget of organization. The results are represented in Table 41, 42, 43, 4 4, and 45. Gender and Age Of the 13 participants, 76.9% ( n =10) were female and 23.0% ( n =3) were male. In the age category 15.4% ( n =2) were between the ages of 18 and 24, 38.5% ( n =5) were between the ages of 25 and 34, 15.4% ( n =2) were between the ages of 35 and 44, 30.8% ( n =4) were between the ages of 45 54, and none were 55 or older. (Table 4 1) Education Level Of the 13 par ticipants, 7.7% ( n =1) had a high school diploma or equivalent, 30.8% ( n =4) earned an undergraduate degree, and 61.5% ( n =8) earned a graduate degree. (Table 42) Classification of Employment Of the 13 participants none were classified as a Volunteer, 7. 7% ( n =1) were classified as a Part time Employee, and 84.6% ( n =11) were classified as a Full time Employee. (Table 43)

PAGE 61

61 Years with the Organization Of the 13 participants, 15.4% ( n =2) had worked at the organization for less than one year, 23.1% ( n =3) had worked at the organization for 1 3 years, 23.1% ( n =3) had worked at the organization for 4 6 years, 7.7% ( n =1) had worked at the organization for 7 9 years, and 15.4% ( n =2) had worked at the organization for more than 10 years. (Table 44) Operating Budget Of the 13 participants, none had a fundraising budget of $0 $1,000, 0% ( n =0) had a fundraising budget of $1,001 $5,000, 0% ( n =0) had a fundraising budget of $5,001 $10,000, 7.7% ( n =1) had a fundraising budget of $10,001 $15,000, 7.7% ( n =1) had a fundraising budget of $15,001 $20,000, none had a fundraising budget of $20,001 $25,000, and 76.9% ( n =10) had a fundraising budget of $25,001 or higher. (Table 45) Objective One Describe the Extent that NPOs Use Technology Based Communication Strategies The questionnaire contained four items regarding what level the development officer was currently at in regards to various technology based communication strategies. The frequencies ( f ) and percentages (%) are identified in the Table 46, 47, 4 8, 4 9 4 10, 411, and 412.

PAGE 62

62 Objective Two Describe Differences Among NPOs and Technology Based Communication Strategy use The questionnaire contained questions which were used to determine statistical significance among items by demographic factors. The results to these comparisons are in Table 413, 414, 415, and 416. Results indicate that there were no significant differences among respondents use of blogging for fundraising. Specifically, age ( f = .23, p >.05), level of education ( f = .18, p >.05), classification ( f = .13, p >.05), years at organization ( f = .25, p >.05), operating budget ( f = .28, p >.05). Results indicate that there were no significant differences among respondents use of Pod Casting for fundraising. Specifically, age ( f = .14, p >.05), level of education ( f = .29, p >.05), classification ( f = .08, p >.05), years at organization ( f = 5.82, p >.05), operating budget ( f = .18, p >.05). Results indicate that there was only a significant difference in the instance of age in regards to the use of email for fundraising. Specifically, age ( f = 12.22, p <.05), level of education ( f = .20, p >.05), classification ( f = .31, p >.05), years at organization ( f = 3.74, p >.05), operating budget ( f = 1.05, p >.05). Results indicate that there was only a significant difference in the instance of age in regards to the use of the Internet for fundraising. Specifically, age ( f = 5.94, p <.05), level of education ( f = .19, p >.05), classification ( f = .21, p >.05), years at organization ( f = .55, p >.05), operating budget ( f = .68, p >.05).

PAGE 63

63 Objective Three Identify the Current Stage of the InnovationDecision Process The questionnaire contained four questions to assess the current stage of the development officers in regards to various technology based communication strategies. The frequencies ( f ) and percentages (%) for these questions are represented in Table 4 14, 415, 416, 417, and 418. Objective Four Describe Differences in Current Stages in the InnovationDecision Process Among NPOs The questionnaire also contained demographic questions that were used to compare descriptive questions. The results to these comparisons are in Table 419, 420, 421, 422 and 423. Results indicate that there was no significant difference when comparing demographics to the current stage of InnovationDecision Process in regards to use of Adobe Products for fundraising. Specifically, age ( f = .38, p >.05), level of education ( f = .52, p >.05), classification ( f = .16, p >.05), years at organization ( f = .94, p >.05), operating budget ( f = .55, p >.05). Results indicate that there was no significant difference when comparing demographics to the current stage of InnovationDecision Process in regards to use of blogging for fundraising. Specifically, age ( f = .30, p >.05), level of education ( f = .33, p >.05), classification ( f = .14, p >.05), years at organization ( f = .46, p >.05), operating budget ( f = .50, p >.05).

PAGE 64

64 Results indicate that there was no significant difference when comparing demographics to the current stage of InnovationDecision Process in regards to use of Pod Casting for fundraising. Specifically, age ( f = .43, p >.05), level of education ( f = .46 p >.05), classification ( f = .08, p >.0 5), years at organization ( f = 3.61, p >.05), operating budget ( f = .28, p >.05). Results indicate that there was no significant difference when comparing demographics to the current stage of InnovationDecision Process in regards to use of e mail for f undraising. Specifically, age ( f = .92, p >.05), level of education ( f = .29, p >.05), classification ( f = .08, p >.05), years at organization ( f = 3.27, p >.05), operating budget ( f = .18, p >.05). Results indicate that there was no significant differenc e when comparing demographics to the current stage of InnovationDecision Process in regards to use of the Internet for fundraising. Specifically, age ( f = 6.17, p >.05), level of education ( f = .20, p >.05), classification ( f = .31, p >.05), years at organization ( f = .53, p >.05), operating budget ( f = 1.06, p >.05). Objective Five Describe Skill Related to Technology Based Communication Strategies The questionnaire contained one Borich Scale question that asked participants to rate their skill level in regards to various technology based communication strategies. The results are shown in Table 424.

PAGE 65

65 Among respondents findings show that development officers self reported their current skill level for use of email (u = 2.69, SD = .63) and Internet use ( u = 2.62, SD = .65) the highest. Graphic skills were reported low (u = 1.69, SD = .86), however, use of Adobe Products (u = .92, SD = .86), Blogging (u = .85, SD = 1.21) and Pod Casting (u = .38, SD = .87) were reported lowest in self reported skill level of respondents. Objective Six Describe Relevance Related to Technology Based Communication Strategies The questionnaire contained one Borich Scale question that asked participants to rate the relevance level in regards to various technology based communication strategies. The results are shown in Table 425. Among respondents findings show that development officers self reported relevancy level for use of email in fundraising (u = 2.46, SD = .66) and Internet use (u = 2.46, SD = .78) the highest. Graphic skills were reported low (u = 1.46, SD = 1.13), however use of Adobe Products (u = .92, SD = 1.04), Blogging (u = .62, SD = .87) and Pod Casting (u = .46, SD = .97) were reported lowest in self reported relevancy level. Objective Seven Describe Mean Weighted Discrepancy Scores The questionnaire contained on e Borich Scale question that asked participants to rate their skill and relevance level in regards to various technology based communication strategies. The mean weighted discrepancy scores from both scales is represented in Table 426.

PAGE 66

66 Summary This chapter reported the findings of this study. Chapter 5 will summarize the study and discusses the conclusions, implications and recommendations of this study.

PAGE 67

67 Table 4 1 Ages of Participants (n=13) AGE f % 18 24 2 15.4 25 34 5 38.5 35 44 2 15.4 45 54 4 30.8 55+ 0 0 Note: Self reported age of study participants (n=13) Table 4 2 Education Level of Participants (n=13) Education Level f % High School 1 7.7 AA/AS Degree 0 0 Undergraduate Degree 4 30.8 Graduate Degree 8 61.5 Note: Self reported education level of respondents (n=13) Table 4 3 Classification of Participants (n=13) Classification f % Volunteer 0 0 Part time Employee 1 7.7 Full time Employee 11 84.6 Note: Self reported employment classification of respondents (n=13) Table 4 4 Participants number of years at organization (n=13) Number of Years f % Less than 1 year 2 15.4 1 3 years 3 23.1 4 6 years 3 23.1 7 9 years 1 7.7 More than 10 years 2 15.4 Note: Respondents self reported time at current organization (n=13) Table 4 5 Operating Budget of Organization (n=13) Budget f % $0 $1,000 0 0 $1,001 $5,000 0 0 $5,001 $10,000 0 0 $10,001 $15,000 1 7.7 $15,001 $20,000 1 7.7 $20,001 $25,000 0 0 $25,001 10 76.9 Note: Respondents self reported operating budget (n=13)

PAGE 68

68 Table 4 6 Levels of involvement with blogging LEVEL f % Level 1: No use 9 69.2 Level 2: Read others but do not create own blog 2 15.4 Level 3: Create and publish blogs 1 7.7 Level 4: Create/publish blogs, and follow others 1 7.7 Note: Extent to which blogging is used by healthrelated nonprofits in North Central Florida. Table 4 7. Means and Standard Deviations related to blogging Gender Mean Standard Deviation Level of involvement 1.54 .967 Current Stage 1.75 1.06 Age Mean Standard Deviation Level of involvement 1.54 .967 Current Stage 1.75 1.06 Education Mean Standard Deviation Level of involvement 1.54 .967 Current Stage 1.75 1.06 Classification Mean Standard Deviation Level of involvement 1.58 .996 Current Stage 1.73 1.10 Years at Organization Mean Standard Deviation Level of involvement 1.64 1.03 Current Stage 1.90 1.10 Operating Budget Mean Standard Deviation Level of involvement 1.58 .996 Current Stage 1.82 1.08 Note: Means and Standard Deviations in relation to demographic questions

PAGE 69

69 Table 4 8. Levels of involvement with Pod Casting LEVEL f % Level 1: No use 11 84.6 Level 2: Listen to other Pod Cast but do not create own 0 0 Level 3: Create and publish Pod Cast for organization 1 7.7 Level 4: Create/publish Pod Casts, and follow others 1 7.7 Note: Extent to which Pod Casting is used by healthrelated nonprofits in North Central Florida. Table 4 9. Means and Standard Deviations related to Pod Casting Mean Standard Deviation Level of involvement 1.38 .961 Current Stage 1.62 1.19 Age Mean Standard Deviation Level of involvement 1.38 .961 Current Stage 1.62 1.19 Education Mean Standard Deviation Level of involvement 1.38 .961 Current Stage 1.62 1.19 Classification Mean Standard Deviation Level of involvement 1.42 .996 Current Stage 1.58 1.24 Years at Organization Mean Standard Deviation Level of involvement 1.45 1.04 Current Stage 1.73 1.27 Operating Budget Mean Standard Deviation Level of involvement 1.42 .996 Current Stage 1.67 1.23 Note: Means and Standard Deviations in relation to demographic questions

PAGE 70

70 Table 4 10. Levels of involvement with e mail LEVEL f % Level 1: No use 1 7.7 Level 2: Use e mail occasionally for fundraising 0 0 Level 3: Use e mail frequently for fundraising 4 30.8 Level 4: Always use e mail for fundraising 8 61.8 Note: Extent to which email is used in healthrelated nonprofits in North Central Florida. Table 4 11. Means and Standard Deviations related to e mail Mean Standard Deviation Level of involvement 3.46 .877 Current Stage 1.62 1.19 Age Mean Standard Deviation Level of involvement 3.46 .877 Current Stage 4.62 1.21 Education Mean Standard Deviation Level of involvement 3.46 .877 Current Stage 4.62 1.21 Classification Mean Standard Deviation Level of involvement 3.42 .900 Current Stage 4.58 1.16 Years at Organization Mean Standard Deviation Level of involvement 3.73 .467 Current Stage 4.91 .302 Operating Budget Mean Standard Deviation Level of involvement 3.67 .492 Current Stage 4.92 .289 Note: Means and Standard Deviations in relation to demographic questions

PAGE 71

71 Table 4 12. Levels of involvement with Internet LEVEL f % Level 1: No use 1 7.7 Level 2: Use the Internet occasionally for fundraising 0 0 Level 3: Use the Internet frequently for fundraising 3 23.1 Level 4: Always use the Internet for fundraising 9 69.2 Note: Extent to which the Internet is used in healthrelated nonprofit organizations in North Central Florida. Table 4 13. Means and Standard Deviations related to use of the Internet Mean Standard Deviation Level of involvement 3.54 .877 Current Stage 4.30 1.25 Age Mean Standard Deviation Level of involvement 3.53 .877 Current Stage 4.38 1.21 Education Mean Standard Deviation Level of involvement 3.54 .877 Current Stage 4.38 1.21 Classification Mean Standard Deviation Level of involvement 3.50 .905 Current Stage 4.33 1.16 Years at Organization Mean Standard Deviation Level of involvement 3.82 .405 Current Stage 4.73 .467 Operating Budget Mean Standard Deviation Level of involvement 3.75 .452 Current Stage 4.67 .492 Note: Means and Standard Deviations in relation to demographic questions

PAGE 72

72 Table 4 14. Use of blogging by NPOs df f p Age 12 .23 .87 Level of Education 12 .1 8 .91 Classification 11 .1 3 .94 Years at Organization 10 .25 .8 6 Operating Budget 11 .28 .8 4 Note: Differences between demographics and use of blogging in healthrelated nonprofits in North Central Florida. Table 4 15. Use of Pod Casting by NPOs df f p Age 12 2.14 .1 7 Level of Education 12 .2 9 .7 6 Classification 11 .08 .92 Years at Organization 10 5.82 .0 3 Operating Budget 11 .1 8 .8 4 Note: Differences between demographics and use of Pod Casting in healthrelated nonprofits in North Central Florida. Table 4 16. Use of e mail by NPOs df f p Age 12 12.22 .00 Level of Education 12 .20 .82 Classification 11 .31 .7 4 Years at Organization 10 3.74 .0 9 Operating Budget 11 1.05 .3 3 Note: Differences between demographics and use of email in healthrelated nonprofits in North Central Florida. Table 4 17. Use of the Internet by NPOs df f p Age 12 5.94 .02 Level of Education 12 .19 .83 Classification 11 .21 .81 Years at Organization 10 .55 .4 8 Operating Budget 11 .6 8 .4 3 Note: Differences between demographics and use of the Internet in healthrelated nonprofits in North Central Florida.

PAGE 73

73 Table 4 18. Current Stage regarding Adobe Products LEVEL f % Level 1: Knowledge 8 61.5 Level 2: Persuasion 2 15.4 Level 3: Decision 0 0 Level 4: Implementation 0 0 Level 5: Confirmation 2 15.4 Note: Self reported stage in the InnovationDecision Process in regards to use of Adobe Products in healthrelated nonprofits in North Central Florida. Table 4 19. Current Stage regarding blogging LEVEL f % Level 1: Knowledge 3 23.1 Level 2: Persuasion 2 15.4 Level 3: Decision 3 23.1 Level 4: Implementation 4 30.8 Level 5: Confirmation 1 7.7 Note: Self reported stage in the InnovationDecision Process in regards to use of blogging in healthrelated nonprofits in North Central Florida. Table 4 20. Means and Standard Deviations related to blogging Gender Mean Standard Deviation Level of involvement 1.54 .967 Current Stage 1.75 1.06 Age Mean Standard Deviation Level of involvement 1.54 .967 Current Stage 1.75 1.06 Education Mean Standard Deviation Level of involvement 1.54 .967 Current Stage 1.75 1.06 Classification Mean Standard Deviation Level of involvement 1.58 .996 Current Stage 1.73 1.10 Years at Organization Mean Standard Deviation Level of involvement 1.64 1.03 Current Stage 1.90 1.10 Operating Budget Mean Standard Deviation Level of involvement 1.58 .996 Current Stage 1.82 1.08 Note: Means and Standard Deviations in relation to demographic questions

PAGE 74

74 Table 4 21. Current Stage regarding Pod Casting LEVEL f % Level 1: Knowledge 9 69.2 Level 2: Persuasion 2 15.4 Level 3: Decision 1 7.7 Level 4: Implementation 0 0 Level 5: Confirmation 1 7.7 Note: Self reported stage in the InnovationDecision Process in regards to use of Pod Casting in healthrelated nonprofits in North Central Florida. Table 4 22. Means and Standard Deviations related to Pod Casting Mean Standard Deviation Level of involvement 1.38 .961 Current Stage 1.62 1.19 Age Mean Standard Deviation Level of involvement 1.38 .961 Current Stage 1.62 1.19 Education Mean Standard Deviation Level of involvement 1.38 .961 Current Stage 1.62 1.19 Classification Mean Standard Deviation Level of involvement 1.42 .996 Current Stage 1.58 1.24 Years at Organization Mean Standard Deviation Level of involvement 1.45 1.04 Current Stage 1.73 1.27 Operating Budget Mean Standard Deviation Level of involvement 1.42 .996 Current Stage 1.67 1.23 Note: Means and Standard Deviations in relation to demographic questions

PAGE 75

75 Table 4 23. Current Stage regarding e mail use for fundraising LEVEL f % Level 1: Knowledge 1 7.7 Level 2: Persuasion 0 0 Level 3: Decision 0 0 Level 4: Implementation 1 7.7 Level 5: Confirmation 11 84.6 Note: Self reported stage in the InnovationDecision Process in regards to use of email in healthrelated nonprofits in North Central Florida. Table 4 24. Means and Standard Deviations related to e mail Mean Standard Deviation Level of involvement 3.46 .877 Current Stage 1.62 1.19 Age Mean Standard Deviation Level of involvement 3.46 .877 Current Stage 4.62 1.21 Education Mean Standard Deviation Level of involvement 3.46 .877 Current Stage 4.62 1.21 Classification Mean Standard Deviation Level of involvement 3.42 .900 Current Stage 4.58 1.16 Years at Organization Mean Standard Deviation Level of involvement 3.73 .467 Current Stage 4.91 .302 Operating Budget Mean Standard Deviation Level of involvement 3.67 .492 Current Stage 4.92 .289 Note: Means and Standard Deviations in relation to demographic questions

PAGE 76

76 T able 4 25. Current Stage regarding Internet use for fundraising LEVEL f % Level 1: Knowledge 1 7.7 Level 2: Persuasion 0 0 Level 3: Decision 0 0 Level 4: Implementation 4 30.8 Level 5: Confirmation 8 61.5 Note: Self reported stage in the InnovationDecision Process in regards to use of the Internet in healthrelated nonprofits in North Central Florida. Table 4 26. Means and Standard Deviations related to use of the Internet Mean Standard Deviation Level of involvement 3.54 .877 Current Stage 4.30 1.25 Age Mean Standard Deviation Level of involvement 3.53 .877 Current Stage 4.38 1.21 Education Mean Standard Deviation Level of involvement 3.54 .877 Current Stage 4.38 1.21 Classification Mean Standard Deviation Level of involvement 3.50 .905 Current Stage 4.33 1.16 Years at Organization Mean Standard Deviation Level of involvement 3.82 .405 Current Stage 4.73 .467 Operating Budget Mean Standard Deviation Level of involvement 3.75 .452 Current Stage 4.67 .492 Note: Means and Standard Deviations in relation to demographic questions

PAGE 77

77 Table 4 27. Current Stage in Innovation Decision Process regarding Adobe Products df f p Age 11 .3 8 70 Level of Education 11 .5 2 .61 Classification 10 .1 6 .8 6 Years at Organization 9 .9 4 .4 4 Operating Budget 10 .55 .60 Note: Differences between demographics and current stage in InnovationDecision Process regarding Adobe Products in healthrelated nonprofits in North Central Florida. Table 4 28. Current Stage in Innovation Decision Process regarding Blogging df f p Age 11 30 .83 Level of Education 11 .33 .80 Classification 10 .14 .93 Years at Organization 9 .46 .7 2 Operating Budget 10 .50 .69 Note: Differences between demographics and current stage in InnovationDecision Process regarding blogging in healthrelated nonprofits in North Central Florida. Table 4 29. Current Stage in Innovation Decision Process regarding Pod Casting df f p Age 12 1.43 .30 Level of Education 12 .46 .7 2 Classification 11 .08 .9 7 Years at Organization 10 3.61 .07 Operating Budget 11 .28 .8 4 Note: Differences between demographics and current stage in InnovationDecision Process regarding Pod Casting in healthrelated nonprofits in North Central Florida.

PAGE 78

78 Table 4 30. Current Stage in Innovation Decision Process regarding e mail use for fundraising df f p Age 12 .92 .43 Level of Education 12 .2 9 .7 6 Classification 11 .08 .92 Years at Organization 10 3.27 .10 Operating Budget 11 .1 8 .68 Note: Differences between demographics and current stage in InnovationDecision Process regarding use of email in healthrelated nonprofits in North Central Florida. Table 4 31. Current Stage in Innovation Decision Process regarding Internet use for fundraising df f p Age 12 6.17 .0 2 Level of Education 12 .20 .82 Classification 11 .31 .7 4 Years at Organization 10 .53 .4 9 Operating Budget 11 1.06 .3 3 Note: Differences between demographics and current stage in InnovationDecision Process regarding use of the Internet in healthrelated nonprofits in North Central Florida.

PAGE 79

79 Table 4 32. Skill level for technology based communication strategies Mean Standard Deviation E mail 2.69 .63 Internet 2.62 .65 Graphics 1.69 .8 6 Adobe Products .92 .86 Blogging .85 1.21 Pod Casting .38 .87 Note: Self reported skill level of development officers in healthrelated nonprofits in North Central Florida. Scale: 0 3, 0 being No Skill and 3 being Skillfull Table 4 33. Relevance level for technology based communication strategies Mean Standard Deviation Internet 2.46 .7 8 E mail 2.46 .66 Graphics 1.46 1.1 3 Adobe Products .92 1.04 Blogging .62 .87 Pod Casting .46 .9 7 Note: Self reported relevance level of technology based communication strategies in healthrelated nonprofits in North Central Florida. Scale: 0 3, 0 being No Relevance and 3 being Very Relevant Table 4 34. Mean Weighted Discrepancy Scores Mean Standard Deviation Blogging .05 .3 2 Graphics .05 .16 E mail .05 .10 Internet .02 .08 Pod Casting .0 1 .08 Adobe Products .00 .00 Table 461, MWDS indicate that respondents had the largest self reported differences in blogging (u = .05), e mail (u = .05), and graphics (u = .05).

PAGE 80

80 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECO MMENDATIONS This chapter summarizes the study and discusses the conclusions, implications, and recommendations that have been drawn from the study. The first section of this chapter provides an overview of the study, including the purpose and specific objectives, methodologies, and findings. The remainder of the chapter discusses the conclusions from the findings, implications of the findings, and recommendations for future research. The problem addressed by this study was how nonprofit organizations are choosing to communicate with their publics. In this tough economic time, it is crucial to take budget into account and save money where possible. This is especially true concerning nonprofit organizations fundraising efforts. As the mission of the nonprofit needs to be funded, the actual fundraising efforts are essential but often where budgets cuts are made. The purpose of this study was to examine the use of technology based communication strategies used by healthrelated nonprofit organizations in their fundraising campaigns. This study sought to find what methods are currently being used to disseminate the nonprofits messages. In addition to this, identifying where the development officers are in terms of the adoptioninnovation process was also a goal. The following research objectives were used to guide this study: 1.) to identify the extent that healthrelated NPOs use technology based communication strategies to disseminate messages, 2.) to describe the differences which exist among healthrelated NPOs use of technology based communication strategies, and

PAGE 81

81 3.) to identify the current stage of healthrelated nonprofit organizations in North Central Florida, according to the InnovationDecision Process in regards to use of technology to disseminate information, and 4.) to describe the differences which exist among healthrelated NPOs current stage in the InnovationDecision Process, and 5.) to describe the self reported skill of technology based communication strategies in fundrai sing, and 6.) to describe the self reported relevancy of technology based communication strategies in fundraising, and 7. ) to report the Mean Weighted Discrepency Scores for comparing skills and relevancy of technology based communication strategies in fundraising. This study utilized a convenience sample, which asks a series of questions to a sample of the population. The survey instrument was researcher developed, reviewed by a panel of experts for face and content validity and distributed as a pilot test to obtain acceptable reliability scores. The sample in this study was development officers in healthrelated nonprofit organizations in north central Florida ( n = 27). Responses were obtained from 13 of the 27 participants, yielding a response rate of 51.8%. Summary of Findings Objective 1: To Identify the Extent that HealthRelated NPO s Use Technology Based Communicati on Strategies to Disseminate Messages Objective one sought to identify the extent that healthrelated NPOs use technology based communication strategies to disseminate their messages. In regards to involvement with blogging, it was indicated that use of this technology was minimal. Sixty nine percent ( n =13) of development officers surveyed indicated that they do not use this technology at all, followed by 15.4% ( n =13) indicated that they read other organizational blogs but do not create their own. Only one participate of the survey (7.7%, n =13) indicated that they create and publish blogs and the same percentage

PAGE 82

82 (7.7%, n =13) responded that they create/publish their own blog as well as following other organizational blogs. The result to this question indi cates that blogging is not a prevalent practice in healthrelated nonprofit organizations. The low mean score (1.54) and standard deviation (.967) confirms that blogging is not used often for fundraising purposes. Use of Pod Casting also had a low indication of utilization. With 11 participants (84.6%, n =13) indicating that they do not use this technology at all. One participant (7.7%, n =13) responded that they create and publish Pod Casts for their organization, with the same percentage (7.7%, n =13) indi cating that they create/publish Pod Casts as well as following others. A low mean score (1.38) and standard deviation (.961) confirms this result. Results from this question indicated that utilization of Pod Casting is severely under used in the healthr elated nonprofit organization field. With only 15.4% ( n =13) of development officers using this technology, there is much room for improvement. E mail was one aspect of technology that was utilized more than any other for fundraising efforts. With a total of 92.6% ( n =13) of development officers indicating that they do use this technology it is evident that this is currently the most used communication method. Following email, the Internet is the second most utilized technology based communication method. It was indicated that 92.3% ( n =13) of development officers use the Internet as a fundraising method. The results from this objective indicates that although healthrelated NPOs have begun to use technology based communication strategies, they do not utilize them to

PAGE 83

83 the fullest extent. Although it is unknown why they have chosen not to utilize this technology, it is evident that they do not use either blogging or Pod Casting much. Objective 2: To Describe the Differences which exist Among HealthRelated NPOs Use of Technology Based Communication Strategies. Objective two sought to describe the differenc es among NPOs and technology based communication strategy use. This objective compared demographics (age, level of education, classification in organizations, years at organization, and operating budget) to technology use (blogging, Pod Casting, E mail an d the Internet). In regards to blogging, there was not a significance ( p > .05) as well as no significance regarding the Fratio. Pod Casting was much the same with no significance ( p > .05) or significant Fratio. E mail was slightly different. There was not a significance ( p > .05) in any case except with age ( p < .05). The Fration was deemed as not significant in email as well. Use of the Internet mirrored the results of email use, with no significance ( p > .05) except in the instance of age ( f = .2 3, p < .05). With the Fratio deemed as not significant as well. When taking mean scores into account when comparing demographics to individual questions, it is more evident to find relationships. The mean for blogging use is 1.54 ( n =13), which indicates that most development officers surveyed do not use blogging at all, or very little. The mean age range was 2.62 ( n =13), which indicates that most development officers surveyed are between the ages of 2534 and 3544. The researcher believes that due to th e ages of the development officers, blogging is not being utilized as much as it could be. Had there been more development officers in the age range of 1824, the researcher believes blogging would be more prevalent.

PAGE 84

84 Pod Casting was also one of the most underutilized technology based communication strategy ( m =1.38). As the development officers indicated that they do not use Pod Casting in order to fundraise, this can also be correlated to age. Like use of blogging, the researcher believes that had there been a younger age range for development officers, use of Pod Casting would be stronger. Pod Casting could be used to fundraise to access another market, or simply add to the channel of communications. By creating Pod Casts of information about the organiz ation and their mission, will allow the audience to access this information and the touch of button. Pod Casts are available for download on an iPod and once downloaded, they can be replayed instantly. From downloading several Pod Casts at a time so the individual could listen to them on the way to work, to using these Pod Casts to show others, these Pod Casts can be used in many ways. Use of email and the Internet did have some significance when examining age as a factor. Both technology based communicat ion strategies, email ( m =3.46) and the Internet ( m =3.54), are said to be used frequently, or always by development officers in regards to fundraising. The researcher believes that since the age range of development officers surveyed is between 2534 and 35 44, their preferred mode of communication is through email and use of websites. This is becoming more and more prevalent and encouraged and therefore researchers are beginning to view this change in preference.

PAGE 85

85 Objective 3: To Identify the Current Stage of the HealthRelated Nonprofit Organizations in North Central Florida, According to the InnovationDecision Process in Regards to Use of Technology to Disseminate Information. Objective three aimed to identify the current stage of the Innov ationDecision Process in regards to different technology based communication strategies. Frequencies ( f ) and percentages were found to analyze results. In regards to use of Adobe products, the most frequent answer was Level 1, which indicated Knowledge (61.5%, n =13), followed by both Persuasion and Confirmation (15.4% each, n =13). With a low mean score ( m =1.83, SD= 1.53) indicating that although most development officers are knowledgeable on Adobe products, they are not all using this technology f or some reason. The researcher believes that this could be due to the fact that these programs are better known in communication and graphic design. Since most development officers are not the ones creating the materials for fundraising, they may not have skills in this area. Current stage in the blogging process is very much scattered. The most frequent stage indicated was the Implementation stage (30.8%, n =13), followed by both the Knowledge stage and Decision stage (23.1% each, n =13), then Persu asion (15.4%, n =13) and finally Confirmation (7.7%, n =13). With a low mean score ( m =1.75, SD= 1.06) these results indicate that use of blogging is not a universal mode of communication among healthrelated NPOs. It seems that some development officers/NPOs are utilizing this technology while others are not. This could be due to lack of knowledge on this topic, not understanding the technology, of lack of time in the development officers schedule, among other reasons. Pod Castings current stage was largely at Level 1, Knowledge (69.2% n =13 ). This was followed by Persuasion (15.4% n =13), and then by both Decision and

PAGE 86

86 Confirmation (7.7% n =13). This indicates that, like blogging, the knowledge is there but the initiative to use this technology is not currently present in healthrelated NPOs. With the lowest mean score ( m =1.62, SD = 1.20 ) thi s leads the researcher to believe that lack of understanding the technology could be an issue in this case. Since many development officers understand what Pod Casting is but do not utilize this technology, it could be because they do not understand how to create a Pod Cast or they are unaware of the benefits of using this technology. The current stages of email and use of the Internet are fairly similar. In regards to use of email for fundraising purposes, 84.6% ( n =13) of development officers placed th emselves at the Confirmation level, followed by Implementation (7.7% n =13 ), and Knowledge (7.7% n =13). Regarding use of the Internet, Confirmation was the most frequent answer (61.5% n =13), followed by Implementation (30.8% n =13) and one deve lopment officer at the Knowledge stage (7.7% n =13). A high mean score ( m =4.62, SD= 1.12) was expected by the researcher. This technology has been around for quite a few years and therefore more and more people are becoming more sufficient in both sending and receiving this type of communication. While NPOs are become more reliant on email and Internet campaigns to fundraise, it is also important to understand their audiences preferred mode of communication. As email and use of the Internet is becoming an all day, every day type of communication, more individuals are saying that they prefer to receive mail, notices, etc. by e mail or through a website. Since this is the case, it is important to understand this and for NPOs to then tailor their communi cation methods to their specific audience.

PAGE 87

87 Objective 4: To Describe the Differences which Exist Among HealthRelated NPOs Current Stage in the InnovationDecision Process. Objective four sought to describe the differences in current stages in the Innov ationDecision Process among NPOs. This question compared demographics (age, level of education, classification in organization, years at the organization, and operating budget) to technology use (adobe products, blogging, Pod Casting, email and the Internet). In regards to Adobe products, there was not a significance ( p > .05) as well as the Fratio not being significant. This was also the case for use of blogging ( p > .05) and Pod Casting ( p > .05). In the case of email and use of the Internet, there was not a significance ( p > .05) except in the case of age ( f = .92, p < .05). The Fratio was also deemed as not significant. Much like comparing individual use of these different technology based communication methods, current stage in the InnovationDecision Process is very similar. The researcher believes that age is the contributing factor in most of the cases. Since the age range is between 25 34 and 35 44, the researcher believes that utilizing new technologies is not a priority of current development officers. Because they have done things a certain way for a quite a few years and it has worked, they will continue to make use of the same techniques. Objective 5: To Describe the Self Reported Skill of TechnologyBased Communication Strategies in Fundraising. Objective five aimed to describe the skill related to technology based communication strategies. This question utilized a Borich Scale question style with a scale of 0 3; 0 being No Skill and 3 being Skillful.

PAGE 88

88 Skill associated with Adobe products was relatively low with a mean ( m =.92, SD= .86) ( n =13) Blogging was also low with regards to the mean ( m =.85, S D= 1.21) ( n= 13). Pod Casting had the lowest mean ( m =.38, SD= .87) ( n =13) E mail use for fundraising indicated a much higher mean ( m =2.69, SD= .63) ( n =13) Use of graphics yielded a slightly high mean ( m= 1.69, SD= .86) ( n =13) Use of the Internet also had a high mean ( m= 2.62, SD= .65) ( n =13 ). This reiterates that healthrelated NPOs use email and the Internet the most in comparison to other technology based communication strategies that were included in the questionnaire. Objective 6: To Describe the Sel f Reported Relevancy of Technology Based Communication Strategies in Fundraising. Objective six aimed to describe the Relevance related to technology based communication strategies. This question utilized a Borich Scale question style with a scale of 0 3; 0 being No Relevance and 3 being Very Relevant. The relevancy placed on use of Adobe products had a mean of .92 ( n =13) and a standard deviation of 1.04. Blogging had a lower mean ( m= .62, SD= .87) ( n =13) Pod Casting was even lower in regards to the mean ( m= .46, SD= .97) ( n =13) E mail had a very high mean ( m= 2.46, SD= .66) (n =13), as did relevance of the Internet with a high mean ( m= 2.46, SD= .78) (n =13) Relevance of use of graphics was high with a mean ( m= 1.46, SD= 1.13) ( n =13). This confirms that development officers believe that use of email and the Internet to be the most relevant tool in comparison to other technology based communication strategies.

PAGE 89

89 Objective 7: To Report the Mean Weighted Discrep ancy Scores for Comparing Skills and Relevancy of Technology Based Communication Strategies in Fundraising. Objective 7 sought to describe the Mean Weighted Discrepancy Scores in regards to the Borich Style question. Mean weighted discrepancy scores (MWDS ) were calculated for each of the skills and relevancy levels as reported by the development officers. A high MWDS indicates training in this area is needed while a low MWDS indicates that no training is necessary. Positive MWDS were obtained for all com parisons of skill and relevancy. The highest MWDS were for Blogging (MWDS = .053), E mail (MWDS = .053), and Graphics (MWDS = .053). This indicates that training in the areas of blogging, email, and graphic use would be helpful to development office rs since they view it as relevant but do not have enough knowledge in this area. Conclusions Blogging is not a prevalent practice in health related NPOs in regards to fundraising. Pod Casting is highly under utilized as a technology based communication me thod in healthrelated NPOs. E mail and use of the Internet for fundraising is the most prevalent technology based communication strategy reported. Development officers/NPOs have begun to utilize some technology based communication methods but are not yet using them to the full potential. Low blogging rate can be attributed to age range of those surveyed. Low Pod Casting rate can be attributed to age range of those surveyed. Use of email and the Internet is more prevalent due to change in acceptability according to individuals. Low Adobe product knowledge could be due to the fact that development officers are not the ones putting promotional material together.

PAGE 90

90 Low blogging could be due to a lack of knowledge as to how to do this activity. Low blogging could be attributed to lack of knowledge as to how effective this technology is in todays society. Low Pod Casting could be due to a lack of knowledge as to how to do this activity. Low Pod Casting could be attributed to lack of knowledge as to how effective this technology is in todays society. Knowledge and use of new technology is not a priority to development officers. Since many development officers stick with what works they are not inclined to try new methods of fundraising. Training in areas such as blogging, Pod Casting, and use of email could increase use of these technologies. Discussion and Implications There has been little research done that has examined healthrelated nonprofit organizations, specifically, as a source of information on fundraising. Fundraising is an important and vital part of sustaining an NPO and thus is important to research. By understanding what methods are currently be utilized as well as what is not being taken advantage of, researchers could aid these NPOs in understanding the missing link. In addition, the development officers will then benefit the organization because they will be better equipped to fundraise successfully. Goatman & Lewis (2007) state that NPOs are increasingly using their websites to communicate messages to their publics and this was confirmed from this study. In addition to using the website to communicate message, fundraising is also becoming a top use of websites for many NPOs. This makes it very convenient for donors and is expected by many in todays fast paced society. Waters (2007) also confirms this idea by stating that 95% of NPOs accept online donations. The researc h believes that this

PAGE 91

91 study confirms this statistic. The researcher found that 100% of the NPOs surveyed utilize websites, as well as 100% of them use their website for fundraising purposes. As technology changes on a daily basis, this is very hard for N POs to stay current due to lack of financial resources. Guidestar (2007) states that since technology alters the way people interact and get information, that NPOs need to adapt to these changes in order to stay alive. The researchers study confirms that development officers understand that technology based communication methods are out there available for use but they are not utilizing all of them to the fullest extent. Social media has been suggested to NPOs in order to maximize exposure to their audiences as well as it allowing for twoway communication (Guidestar, 2007). As blogging is a part of social media, NPOs should definitely take part in this activity. The researchers study has shown that although development officers understand what blogg ing is, they are not utilizing this technology to the fullest extent. Klein (2001) emphasizes the idea of building relationships while fundraising. Social media and use of technology based communication strategies can help development officers do this. By utilizing two way communication channels such as blogging, this could allow more options to increase the number of relationships they can cultivate and sustain. The researcher found that not all types of social media are being utilized to the fullest exte nt, and therefore, these relationships could be made stronger. E mail is one of the most common methods used to fundraise that involves the Internet. Burko (2009) states that in terms of price, use of email is extremely cost effective. The researchers s tudy confirmed that most healthrelated NPOs in North Central Florida do utilize email to fundraise.

PAGE 92

92 Recommendations Recommendations for future research and practice are provided as a result of assessing the use of technology based communication strategies in nonprofit organizations as well as the factors that influence message dissemination. Recommendations for Practice Development officers should be informed on the efficiency (both cost as well as timely) of technology based communication strategies ( use of blogging, Podcasting, etc.) Information/training sessions on blogging should be provided for healthrelated NPOs in order for development officers to be informed on the process of creating blogs, following blogs, as well as the effectiveness of blog use. Information/training sessions on Pod Casting should be provided for healthrelated NPOs in order for development officers to be informed on the process of creating Pod Casts as well as the effectiveness of using Pod Casting. Development officers should utilize more technology based communication strategies for fundraising efforts. Recommendations for Future Research More research should be done to find why development officers use the current methods to disseminate messages as well as why they do not expand into new techniques. Qualitative research should be conducted in the form of interviews with development office rs. By interviewing development officers, the researcher can ask specific questions to get a better understanding of why these development officers choose the methods they do. A qualitative study should be done with development officers to identify additi onal methods of communication that are used to disseminate message that were not identified in questionnaire. A larger sample size should be carried out by way of survey methodology. By gaining the opinions of additional development officers, the researcher can reach a better conclusion as to what methods are used by more organizations. Additional research should be done with other nonprofit industries (other than healthrelated) and compared to this study.

PAGE 93

93 Facebook and Twitter should be included in furt her research to further understand what methods NPOs are currently utilizing. Further examination into characteristics of demographics should be done to better understand specifically what type of person is using what technology. Current Trends in Fundr aising Since this study has concluded, there have been many developments in the field of fundraising due to several unfortunate events. The earthquake and Haiti was one of these events. Much like September 11, 2001, the earthquake also changed the way nonprofit organizations approach fundraising. Since new technology has evolved, this translated in how the Red Cross, among many others, solicited for donations. Yesterday, we noted that $5 million had been raised in donations for Haiti through text messaging in the U.S. alone. Today, that number surpassed $10 million(Siegler, 2010). Text messaging is not the only trend that has been observed in fundraising. There are also trends in how these organizations are choosing to communicate to their audience. It w as found that 62% of respondents cited some form of asynchronous communication: information was disseminated through email, newsletters, websites or direct mail (Johnson, Debner & Vesneski, 2009). Social networking within nonprofit organizations for fundraising is also on the rise. Because most social networking sites are free to use, this is a perfect outlet for nonprofit organizations. Sites such as Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn, as well as many more can be helpful tools to those organizations that need to cut back on their fundraising budgets. In addition to these trends, the idea of stewardship has become a buzzword in the nonprofit industry. Although creating and building relationships have always been a

PAGE 94

94 focus for NPOs, it has been significantly more important in this tough economic time. We have continued to keep the same rate of contact with our major donors, whether or not we expect them to make a significant commitment in the short term (Johnson, Debner, & Vesneski, 2009). This is because nonprofits are realizing that even if a donor is not able to make a significant donation now, when the economy turns around, they will remember the relationship that they have and make that contribution. The current trends of use of social media and use of technology make this an easy process for development officers. Reflection on Research Process Unfortunately, there were many obstacles during this study. First, the issue of timing with the webbased survey was not successful. Due to the holidays many developm ent officers did not respond to the survey the first time it was sent out. This could have been because they were already out of the office for the holiday season or because they were too busy before the holidays began to take the survey. After the low res ponse rate, the researcher decided to send the survey out again after the new year and everyone was back to work. Secondly, there was some confusion with who the survey was emailed to. The researcher found individual names for many of the organizations from looking on their websites, but for other organizations, phone calls where made. In these instances the secretary often told the researcher names of who could help in the area of fundraising. In some cases, there were multiple employees that were invol ved with fundraising so the researcher tried to send the questionnaire to all involved. This must have confused many of them because they did not respond.

PAGE 95

95 When the researcher decided to distribute the questionnaire again, phone calls were also made in an attempt to increase the response rate. This was a very discouraging process as it seemed as though the there was not much enthusiasm to complete the questionnaire. Upon getting development officers on the phone, they did not want to take the time to answer the questions over the phone and often pushed the researcher through to another individual. This can only be thought to be because of a busy work load or lack of interest in the research being conducted. It has to be said that there were a few organiza tions that were very enthusiastic about the research being done and further validated that it was important. They were the development officers that were eager to hear what became of this research and very encouraging to the researcher. Summary Chapter 5 began by reviewing the previous chapters as well as reviewing the purpose and objectives of this study. It then summarized the findings for each seven objectives. Next, conclusions were drawn from the data provided in Chapter 4. These conclusions were discussed in further detail and compared to previous literature. Finally, recommendations for practice and future research were offered.

PAGE 96

96 APPENDIX A INSTRUMENT The Use of Technology Based Communication Strategies for Fundraising in HealthRelated Non Profits in North Central Florida Purpose of the research study: The purpose of this study is to examine the use of technology based communication strategies used by healthrelated nonprofit organizations in their fundraising campaigns. Specifically, exa mining the perceptions and implementation of individual technologies in fundraising efforts. What you will be asked to do in the study: You are asked to complete an online survey. Please complete this to your best ability. Time required: 30 minutes Ris ks and Benefits: There are no perceived risks or benefits in this study. Compensation: You will NOT be paid to complete this study. Confidentiality: Your identity will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law. Your information will be assigned a code number. Your name will not be used in any report. Voluntary participation: Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. There is no penalty for not participating. Right to withdraw from the study: You have the right to withdraw f rom the study at anytime without consequence. Whom to contact if you have questions about the study:

PAGE 97

97 Amanda Brumby, Graduate Student, Department of Agricultural Education and Communication, PO Box 11540, phone 3920502. Whom to contact about your rights as a research participant in the study: IRB02 Office, Box 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 326112250; phone 3920433. Agreement: I have read the procedure described above. I voluntarily agree to participate in the procedure and I have received a copy of this description. Participant: ___________________________________________ Date: __________ Principal Investigator: ___________________________________ Date: __________ 1. What is your preferred computer platform? a. Macintosh b. Windows 2. Does your organization use both computer platforms? a. Yes b. No 3. Does your organization have a website? a. Yes b. No 4. Is your organizations website used for fundraising purposes? a. Yes b. No 5. Are you an administrative member of your organizations website team? a. Yes b. No

PAGE 98

98 6. How would you rate yourself as a user of Adobe Products? a. No knowledge of this product b. Can use it but occasionally need help c. Can use it to accomplish most tasks d. Expert have or would be willing to instruct others 7. What is your view of using Adobe Products for fundrai sing efforts? a. Strongly Agree b. Agree c. Neutral d. Disagree e. Strongly Disagree 8. What is your current stage in regards to using Adobe Products for fundraising efforts? a. Level 1: Knowledge (I have only heard about this technology, I do not use it) b. Level 2: Persuasion (I have had others urge me to use this technology but still do not use it) c. Level 3: Decision (I have made the decision to use this technology) d. Level 4: Implementation (I have begun to use this technology) e. Level 5: Confirmation (I use this technology most of the time and feel it is useful in this context) 9. What is your interest in blogging, in regards to your organization? a. Very interested b. Somewhat interested c. Im not sure, what is it? d. No interest

PAGE 99

99 10. In regards to blogging for fundraising purposes, what processes are you involved with? a. Level 1: I do not use blogging for fundraising efforts b. Level 2: I read other organizations blogs, but do not create any of my own c. Level 3: I create and publish blogs for my organization d. Level 4: I create/publish blogs, as well as fol lowing other organizations 11. What is your view of using blogging for fundraising efforts? a. Strongly Agree b. Agree c. Neutral d. Disagree e. Strongly Disagree 12. What is your current stage in regards to using blogging for fundraising efforts? a. Level 1: Knowledge (I have onl y heard about this technology, I do not use it) b. Level 2: Persuasion (I have had others urge me to use this technology but still do not use it) c. Level 3: Decision (I have made the decision to use this technology) d. Level 4: Implementation (I have begun to use this technology) e. Level 5: Confirmation (I use this technology most of the time and feel it is useful in this context) 13. What is your interest in Pod Casting, in regards to your organization? a. Very interested b. Somewhat interested c. Im not sure, what is it? d. No in terest 14. In regards to Pod Casting, what processes are you involved with?

PAGE 100

100 a. Level 1: I do not use Pod Casting for fundraising efforts b. Level 2: I listen to other organizations Pod Casts, but do not create any of my own c. Level 3: I create and publish Pod Casts for my organization d. Level 4: I create/publish Pod Casts, as well as following other organizations 15. What is your view of using Pod Casting for fundraising efforts? a. Strongly Agree b. Agree c. Neutral d. Disagree e. Strongly Disagree 16. What is your current stage in regards t o using Pod Casting for fundraising efforts? a. Level 1: Knowledge (I have only heard about this technology, I do not use it) b. Level 2: Persuasion (I have had others urge me to use this technology but still do not use it) c. Level 3: Decision (I have made the dec ision to use this technology) d. Level 4: Implementation (I have begun to use this technology) e. Level 5: Confirmation (I use this technology most of the time and feel it is useful in this context) 17. Indicate your email use for fundraising? a. Level 1: I do not use e mail for fundraising b. Level 2: I use email occasionally for fundraising c. Level 3: I use email frequently for fundraising d. Level 4: I always use email for fundraising

PAGE 101

101 18. What is your view of using email for fundraising efforts? a. Strongly Agree b. Agree c. Neutral d. Disagree e. Strongly Disagree 19. What is your current stage in regards to using email for fundraising efforts? a. Level 1: Knowledge (I have only heard about this technology, I do not use it) b. Level 2: Persuasion (I have had others urge me to use this technology but still do not use it) c. Level 3: Decision (I have made the decision to use this technology) d. Level 4: Implementation (I have begun to use this technology) e. Level 5: Confirmation (I use this technology most of the time and feel it is useful in this context) 20. I ndicate your graphics use for fundraising: a. Level 1: I do not use graphics for fundraising b. Level 2: I use graphics on a small scale for fundraising (ex: clip art) c. Level 3: I use graphics on a larger scale for fundraising (ex: digital photos) d. Level 4: I always use graphics for fundraising (ex: Photoshop, InDesign and Publisher) 21. What is your view of graphic use for fundraising efforts? a. Strongly Agree b. Agree c. Neutral d. Disagree e. Strongly Disagree

PAGE 102

102 22. What is your current stage in regards to using graphics use for fundraising efforts? a. Level 1: Knowledge (I have only heard about this technology, I do not use it) b. Level 2: Persuasion (I have had others urge me to use this technology but still do not use it) c. Level 3: Decision (I have made the decision to use this technology) d. Level 4: Implementation (I have begun to use this technology) e. Level 5: Confirmation (I use this technology most of the time and feel it is useful in this context) 23. Indicate your Internet use in regards to fundraising: a. Level 1: I do not use the Internet for fundraising b. Level 2: I use the Internet occasionally to fundraise c. Level 3: I use the Internet frequently to fundraise d. Level 4: I always use the Internet to fundraise 24. What is your view of using the Internet for fundraising efforts? a. Strongly Agree b. Agre e c. Neutral d. Disagree e. Strongly Disagree 25. What is your current stage in regards to using the Internet for fundraising efforts? a. Level 1: Knowledge (I have only heard about this technology, I do not use it) b. Level 2: Persuasion (I have had others urge me to use this technology but still do not use it) c. Level 3: Decision (I have made the decision to use this technology)

PAGE 103

103 d. Level 4: Implementation (I have begun to use this technology) e. Level 5: Confirmation (I use this technology most of the time and feel it is useful in this context) 26. What is the total number of hours a week that you spend on a computer, at the office? a. 0 b. Less than 1 c. 1 5 d. 6 10 e. 1115 f. 1620 g. 21+ 27. Of these hours, how many are used for fundraising activities? a. 0 b. Less than 1 c. 1 5 d. 6 10 e. 1115 f. 1620 g. 21+ 28. What is your most common activity when using a computer at the office? (Check only 1) a. Fundraising b. Researching c. Searching Databases d. E mail

PAGE 104

104 e. Letter writing f. Design work 29. How many hours a week do you spend doing the following activities (at the office)? a. Fundraising (0, less t han 1, 15, 610, etc.) b. Research c. Searching Databases d. E mail e. Letter writing f. Design work 30. Indicate your gender: a. Female b. Male 31. Indicate your age: a. 1824 b. 2534 c. 3544 d. 4554 e. 55+ 32. Indicate the highest level of education completed: a. High School b. Community College c. University (Undergraduate Degree) d. University (Graduate Degree) 33. What is your classification at your organization?

PAGE 105

105 a. Employee b. Volunteer 34. What is the total number of years that you have served as development officer for your organization? a. Less than 1 year b. 1 3 years c. 4 6 years d. 7 9 e. More than 10 years 35. What fundraising budget does your organization belong to, as of last year? a. $0 $5,000 b. $5,001 $10,000 c. $10,001 $50,000 d. $50,001 $1 million e. $1.1 million + 36. What is your operating budget (yearly), in regards to fundraising? a. $0 $1,000 b. $1,001 $5,000 c. $5,001 $10,000 d. $10,001 $15,000 e. $15,001 $20,000 f. $20,001 $25,000 g. $25,001 + Borich Scale Questions Scale for these questions will be the following: Skill : No skills, Low skills, Moderate skills, Skillful

PAGE 106

106 Relev ance : No relevance, Some relevance, Relevant, Very relevant Questions Skill Relevance 1. Use of Adobe Products, in regards to fundraising? 2. Use of blogging, in regards to fundraising? 3. Use of Pod Casting, in regards to fundraising? 4. Use of email, in regards to fundraising? 5. Use of graphics, in regards to fundraising? 6. Use of the Internet, in regards to fundraising?

PAGE 107

107 APPENDIX B EMAIL 1 I am writing to ask your help in a study of nonprofit organizations being conducted for the University of Florida. This study is part of an effort to learn the role that technology plays in fundraising efforts for nonprofit organizations. It is my underst anding that you are involved with fundraising within the nonprofit organization that you work for. I am conducting a convenience sample of development directors from North Central Florida healthrelated nonprofit organizations. Results from the survey wil l be used to help other nonprofit organizations understand the role that technology plays in fundraising. By understanding what technology communication methods that nonprofit organizations are using and how effective they are, other organizations will be able to apply this method as well. Your answers are completely confidential and will be released only as summaries in which no individual's answers can be identified. When you return your completed questionnaire, your name will be deleted from the mailing list and never connected to your answers in any way. This survey is voluntary. However, you can help us very much by taking a few minutes to share your experiences and opinions about use of technology in fundraising. If for some reason you prefer not to r espond, please let m e know by responding by email. If you have any questions or comments about this study, I would be happy to talk with you. My phone number is (352) 3920502 x 244 or you can respond to this email. Thank you very much for helping with this important study.

PAGE 108

108 Amanda Brumby MS Graduate Assistant University of Florida

PAGE 109

109 APPENDIX C EMAIL 2 I am writing to ask your help in a study of nonprofit organizations being conducted for the University of Florida. This study is part of an effort to learn the role that technology plays in fundraising efforts for nonprofit organizations. It is my underst anding that you are involved with fundraising within the nonprofit organization that you work for. We are conducting a convenience sample of development directors from North Central Florida healthre lated nonprofit organizations. Results from the survey w ill be used to help other nonprofit organizations understand the role that technology plays in fundraising. By understanding what technology communication methods that nonprofit organizations are using and how effective they are, other organizations will b e able to apply this methods as well. Your answers are completely confidential and will be released only as summaries in which no individual's answers can be identified. When you return your completed questionnaire, your name will be deleted from the mail ing list and never connected to your answers in any way. This survey is voluntary. However, you can help us very much by taking a few minutes to share your experiences and opinions about use of technology in fundraising. If for some reason you prefer not t o respond, please let me know by responding by email. Please click on this link and it will take you to the survey: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/GS2RKKJ If you could provide me with any feedback regarding this questionnaire, that would be greatly appreciated. Please let me know if you found anything unclear or inappropriate.

PAGE 110

110 If you have any questions or comments about this study, I would be happy to talk with you. My phone number is (352) 3920502 x 244 or you can respond to this email. Thank you very much for helping with this important study. Amanda Brumby MS Graduate Assistant University of Florida

PAGE 111

111 APPENDIX D EMAIL 3 Last week a questionnaire seeking your opinion on technology use in fundraising efforts by nonprofit organizations was emailed to you. If you have already completed and returned the questionnaire, please accept my sincere thanks. If not, please do so today. I am espec ially grateful for your help because it is only by asking people like you to share your experiences that we can understand why people use technology in fundraising efforts. Again, here is the link that will take you to the questionnaire: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/GS2RKKJ If you could provide me with any feedback regarding this questionnaire, that would be greatly appreciated. Please let me know if you found anything unclear or inappropriate. Thank y ou very much for helping with this important study. Amanda Brumby MS Graduate Assistant University of Florida

PAGE 112

112 APPENDIX E EMAIL 4 A week ago I sent an email containing a link to a questionnaire regarding the use of technology in fundraising efforts within nonprofit organizations. To the best of my knowledge, it's not yet been returned. I am writing again because of the importance that your questionnaire has for helping to get accurate results. Although I sent questionnaires to most healthrelated nonprofit organizations in North Central Florida, it's only by hearing from nearly everyone in the sample that I can be sure that the results are truly representative. A few people have replied to say that they are not involved in fundraising within their organization. If this applies to you, please let me know by replying to this email so that I can remove y our name from the mailing list. A comment on our survey procedures. A questionnaire identification number is given to each questionnaire so that I can check your name off of the mailing list when it is returned. The list of names is then destroyed so that individual names can never be connected to the results in any way. Protecting the confidentiality of people's answers in very important to us, as well as the University. Again, here is the link to the questionnaire: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/GS2RKKJ?c=35 I hope that you will fill out and return the questionnaire soon, but if for any reason you p refer not to answer it, please let me k now by replying to this email. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me by responding to this email.

PAGE 113

113 Thanks! Amanda Brumby MS Graduate Assistant University of Florida

PAGE 114

114 APPENDIX F EMAIL 5 As I know you were busy before and during the holidays, I understand that my previous emails may have been overlooked. I sent a few emails before the holidays containing a link to a survey in regards to Technology Use in Fundraising. Today, I hope that you know have a little more time to consider taking this survey. As a graduate student at the University of Florida, I am trying to build upon the body of knowledge in regards to the nonprofit sector. It is people like you who can allow me to graduate with a better understanding of how the nonprofit sector operates and therefore have a better opportunity of succeeding in my future. Below is the link to the survey. All you need to do is click on the link (or copy and paste) and it will take you to the s urvey. This should only take a few minutes of your time and requires NO research on your part. It is strictly your opinion and knowledge that is needed. https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/GS2RKKJ Again, thank you for your time and help in this process. I truly appreciate it! Thanks! Amanda Brumby MS Graduate Assistant University of Florida

PAGE 115

115 APPENDIX G EMAIL 6 Hello again! I emailed you last week in regards to participating in a study that I am conducting. I realize that you are very busy with your own work and life but I hope that you will consider helping me in my thesis research. As a graduate student at the University of Florida I am hoping to collect information about Technology Use in Fundraising. The survey will only take a few minutes to take and does NOT require any research on your part. It is based only on your opinion and knowledge on fundraising tech niques. The link is provided below and all you have to do is click on the link (or copy and paste) and it will direct you to the survey. https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/GS2RKKJ Also, if you know anyone else in your organization that would have knowledge in this area feel free to pass this link along. The more participants that I have in this study, the better so you would be doing me a great favor. Again, I really appreciate your time and effort with this! Thanks! Amanda Brumby MS Graduate Assistant University of Florida

PAGE 116

116 LIST OF REFERENCES Ary, D., Jacobs, L.C., and Razavieh, A. (2002). Introduction to research in education. 6th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Thomson Learning. Baker, M.J. (2000). Marketing theory: A student text Florence, KY: Cengage Learning Business Press. Barrett, H., Balloun, J.L., & Weinstein, A. (2005). The impact of creativity on performance in nonprofits. International journal of nonprofit & voluntary sector marketing, 10(4), 213223. Retrieved from Business Source Premier database, July 19, 2009. Berndston, B. (1970). A first priority: F.P. communication through printed material. Requirements for preparation and production of printed material. Paper presented at the International Workshop on Communication in Family Planni ng Programs, in Teheran, Iran. Bhagat, V. (2004). The new marketing model for nonprofits. Nonprofit World, 22(6), 17 19. Connors, T.D. (2001). The Nonprofit Handbook: Management 3rd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Blackbaud. (2005). Technology in fundraising: The top ten ways technology can help your organization. Retrieved June 13, 2009 from http://www.blackbaud.com/files/resources/ downloads/WhitePaper_TopTenWaysT echnologyHelpsFundraising.pdf Burko, R. (2009). Non profit email marketing: Three keys to npo business success. Retrieved July 21, 2009 from http://www.goarticles.com/cgi bin/showa.cgi?C=1772264 BusinessDictionary. (2009). Fundraising. Retrieved July 14, 2009 from http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/fundraising.html Communi cation Improvement Free Resource Center. (2009). Communication channels are important: What are communication channels and why are they important? Retrieved June 30, 2009 from http://work911.com/c ommunication/channels.htm Connors, T. D. (2001). The nonprofit handbook Third edition. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Dillman, D.A. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Entreprenuer. (2009). Direct Mail. Retrieved July 21, 2009 from http://www.entrepreneur.com/encyclopedia/term/82234.html

PAGE 117

117 Features from Fastrak Consulting. (1998). Communication methods compared. Retrieved A pril 5, 2009 from http://www.fastrak consulting.co.uk/tactix/Features/commopts/comopt07.htm Florida Counties Map. (2008). North central Retrieved June 2, 2009, from http://www.floridacountiesmap.com/northcentral.shtml Foundation Center. (2009). Frequently asked questions: How many nonprofit organizations are there in the United States? Retrieved June 3, 2009 from http://foundationcenter.org/getstarted/faqs/html/howmany.html Frank, R.G. & Salkever, D.S. (1994). Nonprofit organizations in the health sector Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8(4), 129144. Friedman, D. (2004). Eight tips for more effective email communication. Retrieved June 30, 2009 from http://www.imakenews.com/orcc/e_article000227828.cfm Goatman, A.K. & Lewis, B.R. (2007). Charity e volution? An evaluation of the attitudes of UK charities towards website adoption and use. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 12(1), 33 46. Goldhor, H. (1974). The use of late respondents to estimate the nature of nonrepondents. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Office of Education. Guidestar. (2007). The future of fundraising. Retrieved June 26, 2009 from http://www2.guidestar.org/rxa/news/articles/2007/futureof fundraising.aspx?articleId=1151 Hager, M., Rooney, P. & Pollak, T. (2002). How fundraising is carried out in US nonprofit organizations. International Journal of Nonprofit and Volunt ary Sector Marketing, 7(4). Hooper, P., & Stobart, S. (2002). Using thirdparty services to reduce the development cost and improve the effectiveness of charity websites. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 8(4), 328337). Hopkins, B.R. (1987). The law of tax exempt organizations 5th ed. New York: Wiley. Ingenhoff, D. & Koelling, A.M. (2008) The potential of web sites as a relationship building tool for charitable fundraising NPOs. Public Relations Review, 35(1). Retrieved July 21, 2009 from ScienceDirect. Johnson, K., Debner, S., & Vesneski, W. (2009). Nonprofit fundraising trends 2009. Retrieved on March 15, 2010 from htt p://www.tacs.org/files/uploads/FundraisingTrendsSurveyFINAL2_21_2.pdf Katz, E., Blumler, J.G., & Gurevitch, M. (1973). Uses and gratifications research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 37(4), 509523.

PAGE 118

118 Klein, K. (2001). Fundraising for social change. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass. Lane, D. (2003). Inferential Statistics Connexions. Retrieved on March 15, 2010 from http://cnx.org/content/m10185/latest/ Martin, C. (2007). The importance of face to face communi cation at work. Retrieved June 30, 2009 from http://www.cio.com/article/29898/The_Importance_of_Face_to_Face_Communicat ion_at_Work National Society of Fund Raising Executives Institute. (1986). Glossary of fundraising terms. Alexandria, VA: NSFRE. ONeill, M. (1989). The third America: The emergence of the nonprofit sector in the United States. San Francisco: Jossey Bass Publishers. Olsen, M., Keevers, M.L., Paul, J. and Covington, S. (2001). E relationship development strategy for the nonprofit fundraising professional. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 6(4), 364373). Rogers, E.M. (2003) Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press. Rollins, T. (1993). Using the innovation adoption diffusion model to target educational programming. Journal of Agricultural Education, 34(4), 46 54. Salamon, L.M. (1999). Americas nonprofit sector : A primer, 2nd ed. United States: The Foundation Center. Salamon, L.M. & Anheier, H.K. (1996). The international classification of nonprofit organizations: ICNPO revision 1, 1996, Working papers of the John Hopkins Comparative nonprofit sector project no. 19. Baltimore: The John Hopkins Instit ute for Policy Studies. Salamon, L.M. & Anheier, H.K. (1997). Defining the nonprofit sector: A cross national analysis 2nd ed. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press. Sargeant, A., West, D.C., & Jay, E. (2007). The relational determinants of nonprof it Web site fundraising effectiveness: An exploratory study. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 18(2), 141156. Retrieved March 1, 2009 from Business Source Premier Database. Siegler, M.G. (2010). Text message donations to Haiti cross $10 million; Compani es commit immediate funds TechCrunch. Retrieved on March 15, 2010 from http://techcrunch.com/2010/01/15/haiti text donations/ Troy, C.W. (2005). Commentary: Nonprofit sector must take new approach to public relations. Journal Record.

PAGE 119

119 Warner, K.E. (1974). The need for some innovative concepts of innovation: An examination of research on the diffusion of innovations. Policy Sciences 5 433451). Warsh, K. (2009). The panic of 2008. The Council of Institutional Investors 2009 Spring Meeting. Washington D.C. [April 6, 2009]. Retrieved June 3, 2009 from http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/warsh20090406a.htm?source= cmailer Warwick, M. (2009). The 10 more important things about direct mail. Retrieved July 21, 2009 from http://www.malwarwick.com/learningresources/articles/10most important things about dm.html Waters, R. (2007). Nonprofit organizations use of the internet: A content analysis of communication trends on the internet sites of the philanthropy 400. Nonprofit management & leadership, 18(1), 5976.

PAGE 120

120 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Amanda Brumby was born in Ocala, FL and graduated from Dunnellon High School in 2002. She then attended Santa Fe Community College where she earned her Associate of Arts degree in j ournalism. She then transferred to the University of Florida where she attained her Bachelor of Science cum laude with a majo r in agricultural education and communication and an emphasis in agricultural communication and a minor in leadership, in May 2008. Amanda then earned a Master of Science with a major in agricultural education and communication with a minor in family youth and community sciences, in May 2010.