Fondos Unidos Satisfaction Probe

1. Fondos Unidos Satisfaction Probe Fielded: March 2005 Submitted: June.27.05

2. Business Issue: • “FUPR (United Way)” is one the most established fund raising organizations in the world. Its position in Puerto Rico mirrors its international success.Although it continues to be highly successful, the current economic and commercial climate on the Island requires an understanding of entity’s value to the donors and an identification of business-building opportunities for future collection strategies. • In an effort to establish success parameters and define collection growth opportunities for the next five years, the directors were required to assess the effectiveness of the first stage of the plan’s implementation in their assigned area. One of the most critical areas is the need to identify levels of satisfaction obtained by donors contributing to FUPR. In so doing, it is necessary to understand the contributors' expectations when donating to the organization.

3. Research Objectives: • To understand the functional,rational and emotional motivators conducive to charity/fund raising affiliations. • To identify perceptions and attitudes toward “FUPR de Puerto Rico” among the current donor base. • To identify opportunities to expand FUPR donor participation and contributions. • To identify barriers to FUPR donor participation and contributions. • To identify the level of satisfaction or gratification obtained from FUPR contributions.

4. Research Method A: • Qualitative: • Focus Group Technique • Type of diagnostic approach – exploratory • Sample representation: Corporate donor segment of large businesses • Persons responsible for imparting, coordinating and collecting donations within a commercial organization: • Personnel directors • Designated personnel • Company employees who have accepted and contribute to FUPR via automatic payroll withdrawal. • Mid level managers • Line employees • Note: Fondos Unidossubmitted the list of participants.

5. Research Design Alt. A • Three focus groups were conducted in the San Juan Metro Area: • 1) Personnel directors or designated coordinator. • 2) Mid level managers who contribute to F.U. • 3) Line employees who contribute to F.U. • All belonged to large ( 80+ employees) companies and reside in the San Juan Area.

6. Summary Highlights

7. Charity contribution patternsGeneral Patterns • Most participants tended to contribute to one main charity on both a company and personal level. • The dominant charity mentioned in all groups was “Fondos Unidos”. • Specific tangible donations mentioned: • Bill’s Kitchen • “Adopt a school” program. • Muscular Dystrophy Association. • Other charities toward which group participants contributed were: • Cancer Society. • BPPR Institutional Fund (BPPR employees). • SER de Puerto Rico.

8. Charity contribution patternsGeneral Patterns • The amount contributed varied by corporation and individual. • Individual contributions tend to be voluntary. • The amount contributed is determined by the level of commitment and involvement the contributor has with the charity. • It is interesting to note that most respondents were unclear about the amount they contributed toward charities on an annual basis. • This was largely a reflection of the impulse-nature of charity contributions associated with most charities except Fondos Unidos.

9. Charity contribution patternsContributor profile • Most respondents concurred that the degree to which an individual contributes varies according to the measure to which he personally identifies with the charity. • The greater the extent to which the individual feels he can personally benefit or become a charity recipient in the future, the greater the individual’s disposition to contribute to the charity. • Therefore, within a broad organizational structure, the lower level employees tend to make larger contributions than high level employees. • Similarly, the prevailing feeling was that middle class and lower income persons tend to contribute more to charity than persons belonging to higher socio economic echelons.

10. Charity contribution patternsContributor profile • Reasons why low-end individuals tend to contribute more than high-end individuals: • They identify more strongly with the beneficiaries' needs. • They may need to depend on the charity for their personal use in the future. • High-end individuals are thought to have less personal involvement with charities because: • They do not feel they need to depend on them. • They are more concerned with financial matters. • Their contributions to charity are motivated by: • Tax exemptions. • Pubic and personal recognition. • Public relations considerations.

11. Awareness of local charities • Fondos Unidos • Muscular Dystrophy Association • American Cancer Association • SER de Puerto Rico • UNICEF • Red Cross • Centros Sor Isolina Ferré • Salvation Army

12. Charity selection patternsCharity contribution drivers • Corporate management endorsement: • The company endorses specific charities and encourages individuals to contribute or participate. • Peer group pressure: • Managers or business associates contribute – “they will know if I don’t do it and think poorly of me”. • Identification with charity recipient or cause: • A loved one may find himself in a situation that requires a donation sometime in the future. • “I can identify with the cause.” • Moral authority/altruism: • Personal gratification derived from helping others. • Compassion. • The need to give something in return for life’s bounties. • The drive to serve. • Social commitment.

13. Charity affiliation patterns • Charity affiliation patterns reflected in these groups respond to two distinct trends: Corporate or business driven affiliations Individual / personal contributions Planned Impulse driven Motivated by external considerations Motivated by personal/internal considerations. Limited to one or two long-term relationships with certain entities Short term commitment

14. Charity affiliation patterns • The charity affiliation drivers vary by employee hierarchy: Corporate Directives/public policy Project coordinators /personnel directors Mid level managers Peer pressure/managerial pressure Peer pressure/personal identification with charity benefits Line employees These factors are not exclusive of the altruistic consideration expressed previously.

15. What charity is it? What contributions does it make? Why should I contribute? How can I contribute? What’s in it for me? Institutional identification Institutional validation Personal rationalization Personal facilitation Personal validation (rational/affective) Charity affiliation decision-making process

16. Charity institution selection criteria • From a company perspective: • Community impact and recognition. • Resource allocation and administrative cost ratios. • Convenience and administrative expediency. • Breadth and scope of social impact. • From an individual perspective: • Community impact. • Convenience and administrative expediency. • Social impact of the contribution. Credibility and Trust

17. Charity institution selection barriers • Distrust: • Embezzlement scandal; fraud. • Lack of company endorsement. • Lack of identification with the cause. • Company or individuals are bombarded by too many donation requests. • Negative disposition to contribute to a specific cause. • The institution is too restrictive of who can benefit from the charity.

18. Fondos Unidos AssessmentAwareness of Fondos Unidos contributions • “Make a Wish Program” • Bill’s Kitchen • March of Dimes • “Mi pequeño Joshua” – (not affiliated to Fondos Unidos) • Adopt a school program • “Hogar San Cristóbal”

19. Fondos Unidos AssessmentDonor affiliation habit and usage patterns. • Affiliation period: • Most participants contributed to Fondos Unidos during their lifetime as company employees. • When they leave the company they tend to stop donating to Fondos Unidos (unless their next employer is a Fondos Unidos member). • Amount donated: • Between $5.00 and $10.00 per month. • Level of employee involvement: • Financial • Personal: • Involvement Fondos Unidos Activities: • Bill Kitchen’s painting initiative. • F.U. activity coordinators generally voiced greater involvement in fund raising efforts than line employees and mid-level managers. • Employee involvement barriers: • Time and organizational logistic constraints. • Lack of emotional stimulus: • Donor appreciation markers. • Donors do not feel their effort is tangibly recognized or appreciated by Fondos Unidos. • Donation validation • Tangible symbol of the donor’s involvement with Fondos Unidos. i.e., the SER emblem.

20. Fondos Unidos Assessment • Institutional strengths: • Credibility/Trust: • Corporate donor roster. • Length of time in the market. • Global endorsement. • Convenience: • Automatic payroll withdrawal. • Breadth and scope of the contributions’ impact. • The number of charities it reaches.

21. Fondos Unidos Assessment • Institutional weaknesses: • One or two “Coordinators” felt a lack of empathy with the client service representative. • Donors often are unfamiliar with the impact their donation has had. • Donors feel uniformed of the activities the organization conducts. • There is lack on on-going communication with the company/donors. Company employees and/or donors feel distant to the organization !

22. Fondos Unidos AssessmentEmployee contribution motivators • The institution should: • Inform and educate: • Identify the donation destination. • Inform the donor of the impact his donation made. • Generate donor Involvement: • Convey the emotional impact and benefits derived from the donation. • Have the donor witness the benefits derived from his donation. • Convey appreciation and recognition: • Show the donor how much his donation is appreciated and valued.

23. Fondos Unidos AssessmentEmployee contribution detractors or barriers • Ability to afford donations. • Particularly prevalent among line employees. • Leaves company and is, thus, not motivated to continue to donate. • Employees resent the company’s endorsement: • They want to rebel against the company. • Employees feel their contribution is not valued: • The company gets all the credit for the contributions.

24. Fondos Unidos AssessmentF.U. contribution satisfaction rating

25. Fondos Unidos AssessmentF.U. affiliation satisfaction rating All participants felt highly satisfied with their affiliation to an entity that is widely known and is highly reputed.

26. Fondos Unidos AssessmentDisposition to continued affiliated with F.U. If they left their current employment Most respondents stated that they would continue to contribute to F.U. as long as the company they worked for was a contributor. This was largely due to the fact that contributions were made automatically through payroll withdrawal.

27. Fondos UnidosImage assessment • Top of mind associations (common to all groups): • Union • Help • Distribution of charity funds. • A non profit organization. • An organization that obtains funds for charitable purposes. • It represents a union of “joint efforts”. • It is a great institution. • F.U. Uniqueness: • Its reputation; its name. • The public figures that endorse the company. • The breadth of charities it serves. • Its operational structure. • Its organizational structure. • Its consistency and presence throughout time.

28. Fondos UnidosImage assessment • Likes: • Its reputation. • Its scope of service. • The confidence and trust it instills. • Dislikes: • Limited information flow. • Limited communication with the employees. • Lack of tangible evidence of the impact the company donations have on specific charities. • Little advertising, promotion, general market visibility.

29. Fondos UnidosImage assessment- personality projection

30. Fondos UnidosImage assessment- personality projection

31. Fondos UnidosImage assessment- personality projection

32. Fondos UnidosImage assessment- personality projection Idealized entity Accessible identity

33. Fondos UnidosImage assessment- personality SER Personality association: Jerry Lewis

34. Fondos UnidosFeelings elicited by FDPR • “Solamente Fondos Unidos me hace sentir_________________.” • Coordinators: • “Orgullosa cuando aporto una donación.” • “Que mi aportación llega a los necesitados cuado aporto una donación.” • “Satisfecho cuando aporto una donación.” • “Comprometido cuando aporto una donación’.” • “Bien cuando aporto una donación.” • “Importante cuando aporto una donación.” • Managers: • “ Orgullosa cuando aporto una donación.” • “Buen ser humano cuando aporto una donación.” • “Útil cuando aporto una donación.” • “Satisfecho” cuando aporto una donación.” • “Útil y feliz cuando aporto una donación.” • “Responsable cuando aporto una donación.” Note: “Self-gratifying” descriptors.

35. Fondos UnidosFeelings elicited by FDPR • “Solamente Fondos Unidos me hace sentir_________________.” • Line employees: • “Bien con mi persona cuando aporto una donación.” • “Que estoy aportando causas nobles y justas cuando aporto a una donación.” • “Feliz cuando aporto una donación.” • “Buen ser humano cuando aporto una donación’.” • “Alegre cuando aporto una donación.”

36. Advice on how to generate more contributions for Fondos Unidos • Establish direct contact with company employees. • Develop FUPR’s Corporate identity. • “Given me a clearer, more tangible perception of who FUPR is, what it does and how it relates to me, directly.” • “Help me understand how FUPR chooses the charities to which it assigns funds.” • Identify different means by which FUPR can relate to/communicate with the employees. • Don’t limit employee communication to upper- management liaisons and a yearly company presentation. • Develop merchandising ideas that reinforce FUPR’s identity and symbolize the solidarity and bond that exists among donors: • I.e., the yellow “Armstrong” bracelet. • Seek innovative ways to attract donors and patrons. • Create marathons where those who obtain the largest donations are prized and acknowledged.

37. Advice on how to generate more contributions for Fondos Unidos • Communicate the achievements or success stories linked to FUPR fund assignations. • Share these achievements with company employees. • Revamp FUPR’s image; maintain on-going communication or visibility among company employees; enable them to understand how they can benefit from their relationship with FUPR.

38. Conclusions and Recommendation

39. Conclusions • FUPR affiliation patterns are primarily driven by the collection system and organizational “push” exerted by the company that endorses it. • Therefore, donation motivations are primarily “outer directed” i.e., externally driven. • Ultimately, however, the donor’s long term association with FUPR must be “inner directed” (i.e. driven by the personal gratification the donor receives from contributing to FUPR) if it is to generate incremental contributions and long term commitment from company employees. The following page itemizes the “charity contribution or donation drivers” that support these conclusions.

40. Conclusions • Charity contribution drivers • Corporate management endorsement: • The company endorses specific charities and encourages individuals to contribute or participate. • Peer group pressure: • Managers or business associates are contributing – “they will know if I don’t do it and think poorly of me”. • Identification with charity recipient or cause: • A loved one may find himself in a situation that requires a donation sometime in the future. • “I can identify with the cause.” • Moral authority/altruism: • Personal gratification in helping others. • Compassion • The need to give something in return for life’s bounties. • The drive to serve. • Social commitment.

41. Conclusions • FUPR is a highly respected organization and enjoys a leading role among Puerto Rico’s charitable institutions. • The leading barrier to charitable contributions is the pervasive feeling of distrust created by some organizations (i.e..Hogares Crea). Years in the market, corporate and upper management endorsement serve to reassure donors of FUPR’s integrity and trustworthiness. • FUPR enjoys a highly respectable image, and, in many aspects, it epitomizes donors’ idealization of a charitable institution. • FUPR’s personality projections associated with a Mother Teresa, Sor Isolina and Lady Di, reflect an idealized image of what a charitable institution should entail; FUPR is attributed this image.

42. Conclusions • There is, however, a degree of estrangement between FUPR and the donors. This feeling was directly and indirectly expressed throughout all groups. The most succinct expression of this estrangement was expressed in the personality exercise where respondents were asked to give FUPR advice: • “Try to reach out to the individual; be less institutionally driven.” • “Keep more in touch with those who represent you in the different companies.” • “Share your accomplishments with the donors.” • “ Let everyone know of the good things that have been done; where the funds are assigned.” • “ Innovate.” • “Try to do things differently; make more noise.” • “Don’t rely on past laurels and contacts; reach out to all levels of the organization.”

43. Conclusions • Of particular concern is coordinators’ feelings that FUPR does not offer sufficient support in their efforts to involve, attract and bring new donors “into the (FUPR) fold”. • Coordinators gave FUPR a “3”average satisfaction rating. Reasons stated for this mid-level rating were: • Coordinators feel that F.U. lacks sufficient manpower to provide the follow-up and support they need to help them promote the organization internally (within their company). This is an expression of the personal isolation Coordinators feel in trying to fulfill their functions as FUPR coordinators.

44. Conclusions • Expansion of FUPR donor participation within an organization requires a revitalization of the exiting approaches. FUPR should, not only nurture the upper echelon contacts that provide entree into the organization, but strive to generate employee involvement by building upon the employee’s sense of personal commitment and value as a FUPR donor. • Specific recommendations issued by group participants were: • Establish direct contact with company employees. • Develop the FUPR Corporate identity. • “Given me a clearer, more tangible perception of who FUPR is, what it does and how it relates to me, directly.” • “Help me understand how it chooses the charities where it assigns the funds.”

45. Conclusions • Specific recommendations issued by group participants were, continued: • Identify different means by which it can relate to/communicate with the employees. • “Don’t limit employee communication to upper- management liaisons and one presentation a year to the rest of the company.” • Develop merchandising ideas that serve reinforce FUPR’s identify and symbolize the solidarity and bond that exists among donors: • I.e., the yellow “Armstrong” bracelet. • Seek innovative ways to attract donors and patrons. • “Create marathons were those who obtain the largest donations are prized and acknowledged.”

46. Conclusion • FUPR contributors’ satisfaction levels are mixed: • “There is a high degree of satisfaction when one contributes to worthy causes.” • FUPR epitomizes the ideal charitable institution (in many ways): • Credibility/Trust • Corporate donor roster. • Length of time in the market. • Global endorsement • Convenience: • Automatic payroll withdrawal. • Breadth and scope of impact of the contributions it makes. • The number of charities it reaches. • Moreover, the organization is somewhat detached from the donors. They often feel undervalued and non-informed of the specific benefits their contributions reap.

47. Recommendations • FUPR would benefit from revitalizing its marketing efforts toward participating companies. This effort should consider: • Clearly defining its corporate positioning and brand identity. • Establishing out-reach efforts to the employees who comprise the greatest donation volume. • Re-directing its communication efforts in several areas: • Augment awareness of fund allocation destinations and of those who benefit from FUPR contributions. • Focus on initiating processes and using language that appeals to the motivational spectrum that drives contributions at the employee level. • Devise ways to increase perception that FUPR is providing coordinators with the support they require to stimulate organizational participation in FUPR. • Develop PR programs that generate coordinator and company employee involvement.