San Luis Obispo
Non-Profit Support Center Feasibility Study
1998-99

Cuesta College

    Cuesta College Institute of Professional Development

Pacific Gas and Electric CompanyStudy underwritten by PG&E Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Los Padres Customer Operations

Analysis of Survey Data (continued)

Non-Profit Support Center Section

Need For A Support Center
The feasibility study results showed that 60% of the 77 agencies completing the survey said that their agency would use a Non-profit Support Center in San Luis Obispo County and 35% indicated that they were "unsure." Only three agencies said that they would not use a Center and one agency did not respond to the question (See Exhibit 10). These results indicated that more than half of the agencies are interested in utilizing a Non-profit Support Center and that a little over a third need to be shown the benefits before making a commitment.

Exhibit 10:
Exhibit 10

Fee Philosophy For Membership and Seminars
All agencies were willing to pay seminar fees (see Exhibit 11). However, over a third of the agencies (37%) indicated that they supported paying seminar fees without paying for membership. Another group of agencies over third (36%) indicated that their preference was for "sliding scale fees based on agency annual budget." In some cases, there were multiple answers which seemed to indicate that those agencies who had more than one person filling in the survey might have different opinions on this question. Less than a quarter of the agencies were willing to support an annual membership fee plus seminar fees. Less than 10% of the agencies were willing to support "fixed seminar and membership fees."

Exhibit 11:
Exhibit 11

Analysis
The response of paying for seminars and not a membership fee indicated that agencies would pay for services that they understood would give them an immediate return on investment. Agencies seemed to be more skeptical of paying membership fees when they were unsure of what services and benefits they would gain from membership and while credibility was not yet established. This information was substantiated by the interviews and focus group.

Membership Fees
Sixty-six per cent of the agencies indicated that they were willing to pay between $25 and $100 for annual membership fees. Twenty-nine per cent did not respond to the question or were not willing to make a commitment to a membership fee (see Exhibit 12).

Exhibit 12: How Much are Agencies Willing to Pay for Membership Fee?
N=77

Membership Fee

N

Percentage

No Response

22

29%

$25-$100

51

66%

$100-over $200

4

5%

Only five per cent of the agencies indicated that they were willing to pay over one hundred dollars. Nineteen per cent indicated that they would pay fifty to one hundred dollars while 31% indicated that they would be willing to pay twenty-five to fifty dollars. Sixteen per cent indicated that they would pay twenty-five dollars. Twenty-nine per cent did not respond that they would contribute to membership fees.

Exhibit 13: How Much Are Agencies Willing To Pay For Training?

For a half day training

For a full day training

$16 - $40

59%

$31 - $80

61%

$5 - $15

21%

$10 - $30

16%

Over $40

9%

Over $80

12%

Twelve per cent indicated that they would pay nothing for either half day or full day training. Over half of the agencies would be willing to pay $16 to $40 for a half day of training and $31 to $80 for a full day of training.

Analysis
The training fees would not sustain a center because there are costs of training such as paying the trainer that would have to be taken out of the fees. Therefore, training revenues would only be a small contribution to the overall budget of the Center.

How Far Are Agencies Willing to Travel?
For a full day training, a majority indicated that they would travel one hour or more while twelve agencies indicated that they would only travel 30 minutes to a full day training (see Exhibit 14). The majority of agencies indicated that they would travel up to an hour away for a half day training preferring no more than 30 minutes. Thirteen agencies indicated that they would travel over an hour for a half day training (see Exhibit 15).

Exhibit 14:
Exhibit 14

Exhibit 15:
Exhibit 15

Current Training/Development Budget and Commitment for a Non-profit Support Center
Slightly more than half of the agencies (52%) indicated that they spend 1% to 5% of their budget on professional development, staff and board training and education (see Exhibit 16). Fourteen percent said they spend over 6% with a range of six to more than 20%.

Exhibit 16: Percentage of Budget Spent on Professional Development, Training and Education
N=77

Percentage of Budget

N

Percentage of Agencies

No Response

10

13%

0%

16

21%

1%-5%

40

52%

6-10%

4

5%

11%-20%

1

1%

More than 20%

6

8%

Of the 64% of agencies (see Exhibit 16) who commit a portion of their budgets to Professional Development and Training, only 17% said that they would be willing to commit a percentage of their budget for a Non-profit Support Center (see Exhibit 17). Basically, 83% were not willing to make a commitment of their budget for a Non-profit Support Center at this time.

Exhibit 17: Willingness to Commit Percentage of Budget for Non-Profit Support Center
N=77

Willing to Commit
% of Budget

N

Percentage of Agencies

No Response

29

38%

Yes

13

17%

No

35

45%

Analysis
Some agencies had their budgets tied to a funding source which mandated specific training or specific uses for the budget and agencies were not willing to commit to something that their funding source would not allow. Others wanted to know more about the value of the Center before they would commit a portion of their budget to it.

Funding Sources Known To Respondents for Supporting a Support Center
Ten agencies offered specific suggestions for current resources that their organization knew that could support a Non-profit Support Center (see Exhibit 18). Of the 10 responding agencies, several listed multiple funding sources.

In the category of "Individual contributions" only one name was submitted that of Jonathan Swift. In the category of "Government funding," the county of SLO was cited four times including the "General Fund" and "Parks and Recreation."

Exhibit 18: Suggested Current Funding Resources
N=10

Individual Contributions

Government

Private Foundations

Local Businesses

Other

Jonathan Swift (1)

SLO County (4)

California Endowment (2)

SL Sourdough(1)

Older Americans Act (1)

Tenet Healthcare(1)

SLO City (2)

James Irvine(1)

Arciero Winery(1)

  
   

Janssen Foundation(1)

PG&E (2)

  
     

Midstate Bank(1)

  
     

Target (1)

  

Location Of Non-Profit Support Center
Thirty four agencies gave specific recommendations about where the Center could be housed and some of the 34 gave more than one suggestion. United Way and Cuesta College were recommended the most. One comment with a United Way recommendation stated, "I'd like the local United Way as a clearing house and resource in-kind repository. May be a good place to establish a support center." One comment was included with the recommendation for Cuesta College: "…should include Non-profits with private (businesses), otherwise, too much duplication and competition for funding."

Exhibit 19: Recommended Locations by Number of Agency Responses
N=34

Recommended Location

Number of Agency Responses

Percentages

United Way

12

35%

Cuesta College

12

35%

Cal Poly

3

8.9%

Community Foundation

3

8.9%

EOC

3

8.9%

SLO Library

3

8.9%

The following locations were suggested only once: County Schools; County Government Center; Downtown SLO Building; Goodwill; Hotline; Madonna Plaza; Senior Counsel SLO; and Vet's Hall.

There were two comments not to use EOC and one comment not to use SLO COG.
Proceed to the Analysis of Board of Directors Interviews and Focus Group.

Return to the Feasibility Study Table of Contents.


Cuesta College Home Page
Cuesta
College
Home Page
  
Institute for Professional Development Home Page
Institute for
Professional
Development
Home Page