Red Hook Initiative Education 225X

1. Red Hook Initiative Education 225X Jason Medeiros, Anthony Schloss, Paul Franz, Amanda Edwards

2. Agenda • RHI Background • Project Objective and Methods • Findings • Recommendations • Questions/Comments

3. RHI: Background • Founded 2002 • Located in the Red Hook, Brooklyn • Serves residents of Red Hook Houses • 10,000 residents • 3500 are under age 19 • High levels of gang activity, drugs, school drop-out rates • Service model based on idea that change comes from within the community • Serves 2500 people annually

4. Points of Differentiation • 55 Red Hook Houses residents employed by RHI • RHI pays >$250,000 per year back into Red Hook • Significant portion of funds directly impact Red Hook residents • Comprehensive approach to community development

5. Education 4-Pillars Model After-school programs, advocacy within school, reenrolling in school, college application assistance Job readiness training, resume and interview help, entrepreneurial experience for youth, one-on-one career counseling Employment CommunityDevelopment Health Engage adults from the neighborhood: Promote positive change and communication Educate about healthy behaviors, assist with insurance and doctor visits, peer education programs

6. Capital Campaign: Phase 1 • Expanded services • Central location • Increased impact

7. Project Objectives • Frame 2nd phase of capital campaign • Objective 1: Create strategy for attracting new donors from adjacent neighborhoods • Objective 2: Create strategy to increase per capita giving from current donors

8. Methodology • Market Segmentation • Literature Review • Analysis of competitors • Online Survey • Interviews

9. Market Segmentation Objective 1 • Key elements of segmentation • Household income level • Educated population • Current low level of engagement with Red Hook • Shared values with RHI mission Carroll Gardens, Cobble Hill, Park Slope

10. Literature Review: Findings • 5 factors that drive donor commitment • Perceived service quality • Shared beliefs • Perceived risk • Existence of personal link to cause • Trust Basis for survey structure

11. Literature Review: Findings • The easier a non-profit makes the decision to give, the more likely donors are to give • Contributing to non-profits can become part of donor identity • Storytelling is an effective means to build donor identification with organization • Tiered-giving can motivate increased per capita spending

12. Competitor analysis: Introduction • Spectrum of non-profit competition Collegial Combative Alternative

13. Competitor analysis: Findings • Potential Competitors • National Organizations • United Way • Big Brothers and Big Sisters • YMCA • Local non-profits • Added Value • Dance Theatre Etc. • Red Hook Rise

14. Competitor analysis: Findings National Organizations • Strengths • National Awareness • Perceived quality • Decision to give here is “easy” • Weaknesses • Underutilization of internet • Lack of personal connection to donors

15. Competitor analysis: Findings Local Non-Profits • Strengths • Connections to other Brooklyn neighborhoods • Defined core competencies • Weaknesses • Only address one element of community development • Less direct focus on Red Hook Houses

16. Survey and Interviews: Findings • Respondents prefer to give to local charities • Personal connection to mission is primary motivator • After-school programs are preferred RHI service supported by donors

17. Survey and Interviews: Findings • Respondents prefer to give to local charities • Personal connection to mission is primary motivator • After-school programs are preferred RHI service supported by donors

18. Organizations Preferred by Donors

19. Survey and Interviews: Findings • Respondents prefer to give to local charities • Personal connection to mission is primary motivator • After-school programs are preferred RHI service supported by donors

20. Motivation for Giving

21. Survey and Interviews: Findings • Respondents prefer to give to local charities • Personal connection to mission is primary motivator • After-school programs are preferred RHI service supported by donors

22. RHI Services Preferred by Donors

23. Consumer Profiles: Process • Compiled survey results • Disaggregated data by age • Further disaggregated data by annual giving amount • Included qualitative information from interviews • Created composites of potential donors

24. Consumer Profiles The New Young Giver The Affluent Analytic The Entrenched Brooklynite

25. Consumer Profiles • The New Young Giver • 26-35 yrs old • Gives $0-$249 annually • Motivated by personal connection • Internet giver • Never been to Red Hook The New Young Giver The Affluent Analytic The Entrenched Brooklynite

26. Consumer Profiles • The Affluent Analytic • 26-35 yrs old • Gives more than $249 annually • Motivated by mission of organization • Internet giver • Has visited Red Hook The New Young Giver The Affluent Analytic The Entrenched Brooklynite

27. Consumer Profiles • The Entrenched Brooklynite • 36-50+ years old • Gives more than $250 annually • Motivated by type of work and effectiveness of organization • Method of giving varies • Committed to their specific neighborhood The New Young Giver The Affluent Analytic The Entrenched Brooklynite

28. Recommendations 1 of 4 • Messaging • Put RHI’s Four Pillars front and center • Emphasize that donations stay in neighborhood • Share RHI success stories • Emphasize after-school programs

29. Make 4 Pillars a Focal Point • Highlight RHI’s unique model • Emphasize the change created within the community BY the community • Elaborate on the comprehensiveness of the RHI approach • Shine a light on the things RHI does well that make it stand out from the competition

30. After School Programs • RHI service with broadest appeal among donors • Similar to successful tactics used by United Way • Highlight these programs in campaign media • Increase visibility of positive youth activities • Showcase the skills & talents of Red Hook youth • Engage Red Hook youth in service outside of Red Hook

31. Recommendations 2 of 4 • Implement tiered system of giving • Create circles or levels of giving which donors can join at certain donation levels • Research current levels of giving • Increase dollar amount of options for giving by an incremental amount

32. Recommendations 3 of 4 • Maximize potential of the internet • Connect with Red Hook and Brooklyn blogs • Have partners’ websites include an RHI link • Use Quantcast.com or similar site to accurately profile website visitors

33. Recommendations 4 of 4 • Host fundraiser on site • Utilize connections with supporters that are restaurants/bars • Bring people to Red Hook • Allow potential donors to see the new space • Create personal connections • Could be particularly effective for younger donors

34. Questions