HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-19-2015 Senior Center CommissionThe
Center
IOWA CITY/JOMNSON COUNTY SENIOR CENTER
Agenda
Thursdav November 19, 2015
4 p.m. — 5:30 p.m.
Room 209
Time
4 — 4:10 p.m.
1.
Introductions—Honohan
2.
Minutes (July 16, 2015; October 15, 2015)
3.
Public Discussion
4.
Commission Assignments—Honohan
✓ Commission Visits
Board of Supervisors—????
Call in advance to be placed on the agenda
1. Thursday, December 3 and 17 at 9 a.m.
City Council—????
All meeting dates are tentative and should be checked prior to attending
1. Tuesday, December 15 at 7 p.m. --????
4:10 — 4:50 p.m.
S.
Review, Discussion, and Acceptance of 1) Marketing and Fundraising Environmental
Study Report and 2) Iowa City/Johnson County Senior Center Fundraising Plan, both
by M. Linda Wastyn, Ph.D.—Kopping/Honohan
4:50-5:00 p.m.
6.
Iowa City Parks and Recreation Department Alcohol Policy—Honohan
5:00-5:20 p.m.
7.
Operational Overview—Kopping
✓ Strategic Marketing Plan Progress
✓ Operations
5:10-5:30 p.m.
8.
Commission Discussion—Honohan
✓ Board of Supervisors Report
✓ City Council Report—Honohan
Meeting Packets:
1. Agenda: Thursday November, 2015 6. Park and Rec Alcohol Policy
2. Minutes: Senior Center Commission,
Thursday July 16, and November 15, 2015
3. Marketing and Fundraising Environmental
Study Report, Wastyn
4. Iowa City/Johnson County Senior Center
Fundraising Plan, Wastyn
5. Staff Reports
Preliminary Minutes
October 15, 2015
MINUTES
SENIOR CENTER COMMISSION
OCTOBER 15, 2015
ASSEMBLY ROOM, IOWA CITY/JOHNSON COUNTY SENIOR CENTER
Members Present: Cheryl Clamon, Chuck Felling, Jack Hobbs, Mark Holbrook,
Jay Honohan, Kathy Mitchell, Margaret Reese
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Stephanie Bowers, Linda Kopping, Kristin Kromray
Others Present: Shirley Lindell, Ed Rolenc, John Schmidt, Gary Schwartz
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by Honohan at 4:00 PM.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL:
John Schmidt expressed concern over a number of public transportation issues.
He noted that some of these items had been brought up as challenges during the
Ad Hoc Committee on Senior Services last year and he was curious if any of
these had been acted upon. His concerns are:
- Some Iowa City buses have three steps to enter the bus and some only
have one step. He stated that the older three step buses are much more
difficult for seniors to use. He wondered when the older buses would be
replaced making all buses more senior friendly.
- The bus pass system for seniors is difficult to use as it requires both a
pass and correct change to get the discount. Adding to the difficulty is that
there are two different rates during peak and nonpeak hours.
- There is not a dedicated bus stop for the Senior Center. The bus stop that
is across the street from the Senior Center is east bound only. If traveling
any other direction a person needs to walk down to the hub, 2.5 blocks
away.
- Schmidt noted that the Senior Center offers free parking for volunteers
and other parking discounts for members, but no bus passes or discounts.
- The Senior Center has Sunday programming, but since the buses do not
run on Sunday those who must take public transit are at a clear
disadvantage.
- Often the bus route that stops across from the Senior Center is rerouted
when there is construction or downtown street closures. He noted that a
typed sign is taped to the bus stop sign which is easy to miss and also
1
Preliminary Minutes
October 15, 2015
becomes destroyed easily. He suggested some sort of clear indicator that
the stop is closed such as a blinking light or a hood similar to what is used
to indicate that you cannot park in a parking spot would be an
improvement.
Motion: To accept John Schmidt's suggestions. Motion carried on a vote of
7/0. Mitchell/Felling
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM June 11, 2015 MEETING:
Omitted.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
COMMISSION ASSIGNMENTS:
Honohan will attend an upcoming city council meeting.
BOARD AND COMMISSION DIVERSITY TRAINING:
City of Iowa City Human Rights Coordinator, Stephanie Bowers, presented
information regarding diversity on City boards and commissions. She showed
community demographic data and data collected from City commissioners. This
data shows that there is a lack of diversity on city appointed boards and
commissions. She discussed various ways that city staff are working to increase
diversity and gave suggestions on different ways to advertise openings. Mitchell
asked if the new rule setting a two term limit was firm, as she was concerned if
some were working on specific projects is would create a lack of continuity.
Bowers stated that if that were the case then to reapply for the position and reach
out to city council members to let them know what they were working on.
Holbrook gave some suggestions on how to make serving on boards and
commissions more appealing to all members of the community such as formal
recognition at the end of one's term.
COMMITTEE A:
Kopping reviewed the report prepared and approved by Committee A. She
described how the Cost Recovery Pyramid worked and how the committee had
arrived at the percentages ascribed to each level on the pyramid. Committee A
used weighted averages for each level, and ended up with a 32% cost recovery
for the Senior Centers budget.
Preliminary Minutes
October 15, 2015
The Committee's recommendation is for a 2.5% increase in cost recovery
annually until the goal of 35% is attained. The goal could then be re-
evaluated in light of changing circumstances. Committee A thought this was
a realistic goal given that the Senior Center currently raises approximately 28%
of the budget. Kopping thinks this goal is attainable especially given the report by
Linda Wastyn who stated that she believes there are untapped Senior Center
donors.
Kopping discussed membership fee increases. She noted that committee
members felt the increase should not be too high or price The Center out of the
market. There was also concern related to the possibility of discouraging lower -
income participants with high membership fees. Committee members
recommended increases of about 25% for individual and family
membership fees with no increase in scholarship fees. They also
recommended eliminating the out of county fee because there were so few
members in this category.
The commission discussed the membership fee increase at length. Hobbs
questioned if the fee could be increased more. Honohan questioned why
household members received a discount. Holbrook said that the committee had
discussed this and felt there would be many additional household members who
would not renew their membership if the family discount was not offered.
Hobbs noted that in Linda Wastyn's report 60% of the people who returned the
survey said they would be willing to pay $5 to $20 more for their membership, but
that the Committee's recommended increase was on the low end of the increase.
Clamon noted that the committee felt very strongly that people not be priced out
of a membership and that an emphasis would be placed on donations at the time
of renewal for those who would be willing to pay more.
Reese stated that she thought the fee was very affordable and could be raised
especially if it were to be spread out over a monthly or quarterly fee. The
commission discussed this idea. Concerns were raised regarding administrative
work if fees were paid multiple times a year. Reese expressed that at this
membership rate the revenue raised is minimal and perhaps either a larger
increase was warranted or a larger focus on other forms of income needed.
Ed Rolenc asked how often membership increases would occur. He noted that
people like to know what to expect and how often. Holbrook said they had
discussed an increase every 3 years, but that it had not been formalized.
The Commission discussed the length of time between raising fees. All felt the
increase should not be every year and agreed that every 3 years was a good
length of time.
3
Preliminary Minutes
October 15, 2015
Honohan asked if there should be a public forum to discuss the fee increases.
Kopping stated that committee A was a broad, representative group of
participants and the need for the Senior Center to raise more revenue has been
widely discussed for some time. The Commission discussed this idea and it was
decided that the when the fee increases are finalized the information will be
made widely available and will likely be discussed at the annual meeting in the
spring.
Kopping reviewed some of the other changes recommended by Committee A
including allowing for profit organizations to rent rooms for an increased fee and
that rentals cannot occur without a staff person or building supervisor on site.
Honohan stated he would have liked to see a larger increase on the copying
fees. He noted that it takes considerable staff time to make copies and that the
fee should reflect that. Gary Schwartz noted that they were trying to discourage
copying by raising it to 25 cents/page.
Mitchell said that she was not a fan of the idea of a coffee machine from her
experience at the library. The current price of a cup of coffee is 25 cents and the
suggested increase is 75 cents. The commission discussed coffee charges and
whether or not to increase fees to cover actual costs of $0.57/cup. Ed Rolenc
noted that the coffee area is very popular and many people take advantage of
the community that having a cup of coffee together creates. Kopping
commented that creating community was part of The Center's mission and
perhaps the social aspect of drinking coffee was more important than the cost.
Commissioners agreed on a smaller increase to 50 cents per cup.
Holbrook left the meeting.
Rolenc noted that he appreciated the work that committee A had done and that
he felt the commission should honor that work. He also noted that putting a small
raise now and letting people know that increases would come every few years
would be a good way to start, meanwhile increasing efforts in fundraising.
Felling left the meeting.
Motion: To accept recommendations of Committee A and reevaluate
membership fee increases every 2 years and implement any recommended
changes the following year. Motion carried on a vote of 5/0. Reese/ Mitchell
Hobbs left the meeting.
Motion: To defer the remainder of the agenda to November. Motion carried
on a vote of 4/0. Mitchell/Honohan
4
Preliminary Minutes
October 15, 2015
ADJOURNMENT:
Motion: To Adjourn. Motion carried on a vote of 4/0. Mitchell/Reese.
Preliminary Minutes
October 15, 2015
Senior Center Commission
Attendance Record
Year2015
Name
Term Expires
10/23
11/20
12/18
1/22/15
2/13/15
2/19
3/19/15
4/16
5/21
6/11
7/16
10/15
Cheryll Clamon
12/31/18
--
--
--
X
O/E
X
O/E
NM
X
X
X
X
Chuck Felling
12/31/15
X
X
NM
X
X
X
X
NM
X
X
X
X
Rose Hanson
12/31/14
X
X
NM
Jack Hobbs
12/31/16
X
X
NM
O/E
X
X
X
NM
X
X
X
X
Mark Holbrook
12/31/18
X
X
NM
X
X
X
O/E
NM
X
X
X
X
Jay Honohan
12/31/16
X
X
NM
X
X
X
X
NM
X
X
X
X
Kathy Mitchell
12/31/15
X
X
NM
X
X
X
X
NM
X
O/E
X
X
Margaret Reese
12/31/15
X
X
NM
X
O/E
X
X
NM
X
X
X
X
Key: X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
-- = Not a member
The�I
Center iwvx enrNoxxaox co— sExiox eexrzx Marketing and Fundraising Environmental Study Report
September 8, 2015
M. Linda Wastyn, Ph.D.
President, Wastyn & Associates
Background and Executive Summary
In February 2014, the Iowa City City Council appointed an Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee to evaluate
the current vision, mission and programming of The Center with input from center staff and members of
the public as well as a review of existing reports and related documents concerning The Center. This Ad
Hoc Committee's appointment came from the city's concerns about declining city revenue as a result
property tax reform and a trend of declining federal assistance. Rather than find themselves in a
situation where the city cannot fund The Center or have to make difficult funding decisions, they
proactively sought input on ways to help The Center succeed in this new fiscal reality.
As a result of this evaluation, the city asked The Center to develop and implement a plan to increase the
percentage of revenue it generates. Currently the city provides approximately 75% of The Center's
$900,000 operating budget with Center revenue (membership fees, rentals, and raised income)
comprising the balance. Contributed revenue comes from the earnings from an endowed fund held by
the Community Foundation of Johnson County of approximately $700,000 that generates $30,000 in
revenue annually and in philanthropy contributions that vary each year with the largest annual amount
totaling $37,000.
To achieve this goal, The Center identified two main avenues for meeting this revenue target: increased
memberships and increased philanthropy support. Toward that end, they hired Wastyn & Associates to
(1) conduct a study of its members to gauge their interest in contributing toward The Center beyond
their membership; and (2) identify areas of pride for members that could provide the foundation for a
future marketing plan. This report provides the data to support each of these goals. Wastyn &
Associates will use these data to develop and help The Center implement a strategic fundraising plan
beginning this fall.
This study progressed through two separate stages to collect the data reported here. First, a series of
eight focus groups conducted at the end of May 2015 engaged 73 individuals with different relationships
with The Center that ranged from highly engaged (donors, volunteers, leadership) to disengaged (former
members, non-members). Focus groups asked open-ended questions designed to learn about
participants' perceptions of The Center's strengths and areas for improvement. Afollow-up survey —
distributed via email (Survey Monkey), The Center's website, and hard copies mailed to individual's
homes and left at The Center — sought to confirm the focus groups' findings from a larger audience.
With 1,121 survey respondents, great confidence exists in the reliability of the survey data.
The typical survey respondent has the following characteristics: female (74.5%), white (96.6%), retired
(71.8%), with a graduate or professional degree (47.2%), married or partnered (56.4%), 65-74 years old
(44.2%), living with one other person (54.5%) in Iowa City (75.3%), and with an annual household
income between $50,000 and $74,999 annually (22.7%). Most (63.1%) are current Center members and
] I N 1 September 8, 2015
&ASSOCIATES
have been from 1 to 5 years (48.2%). They drive themselves (76.1%) from 1 to 5 miles (73.5%) to reach
The Center.
Together, these two methods gathered data to answer three major questions: (1) How can The Center
better market itself to attract more members? (2) Can The Center raise membership fees without having
a deleterious effect on membership numbers and, if so, by how much? (3) Does support exist for
members (and others) to make philanthropic contributions to The Center in addition to their
membership fees? If so, what kinds of arguments will resonate with them as part of a case for support?
These results indicate that most people initially learned of The Center through a personal contact or visit
with a friend and rely on word of mouth as the second most common source of information about local
events (after the Iowa City Press Citizen), pointing to the need for marketing strategies to harness the
power of personal connections. Overall, results and focus group comments point to a very committed
constituent who highly value The Center and its programs. The members become the best ambassadors
for The Center as this finding supports. Some focus group participants made suggestions along these
lines, such as a "bring a friend for free" promotion as a way to introduce others to The Center.
Even more than word of mouth, most respondents learned of current events in the Iowa City Press
Citizen which becomes another important avenue for marketing. They mostly learn about The Center's
events in the program guide either mailed to their home or left in a public place. While many mentioned
the complicated nature of the information in the program guide, they still relied on it to know what
programs The Center offered.
One-time courses most often drew individuals to become members of The Center followed by exercise
classes and equipment and one-time lectures. Interestingly, lectures ranked higher in importance than
exercise classes and equipment but fell to the bottom of the reasons when forced to choose the one
thing convinced them to become a member. While they likely enjoy the lectures (and some in the focus
groups indicated they prefer lectures to classes because of the more limited time commitment), they
could attend a lecture without becoming a member. The longer time commitment encouraged the
membership.
When asked how The Center made them feel or changed their lives, "staying active" and "mental and
intellectual stimulation" topped the list with the latter as the most important single reason they joined.
Those who do not join The Center or drop their membership find themselves too busy to add another
activity into their busy schedule. Parking issues ranked as the second (through fourth) most chosen
reason for not joining or renewing their membership, although when forced to choose the single most
important reason for not joining, parking fell to near the bottom.
The words that rose to the top of the list as accurate descriptors of The Center included "educational,"
"quality," "open to all seniors," "safe," "active," "clean," "helpful," and "seniors helping seniors." When
we look at the importance people ascribe to these same words, we see a different order but general
agreement that those at the top of the list belong at the top of the list and those at the bottom of the
list belong at the bottom of the list. "Open to all seniors" topped the list followed by "safe,"
"welcoming," "helpful," "friendly," "quality," "simulating," "educational," "clean" and "active."
No statistically -significant differences emerged based on membership status (members, former
members, and non-members), age, income, education, or place of residence on any of these findings.
WSSS0 pCIA T 2 September 8, 2015
All respondents overwhelmingly believe that they received more or much more value for their
membership than they pay. More than 60% indicate a willingness to spend between $5 and $20 more
per person per year for their membership followed by a large number willing to invest between $21 and
$40 more per person per year for their membership. Given the structure of this questions and the
nature of this type of question, likely The Center could increase annual membership by approximately
$30/person without a negative impact on the number of members. Interestingly, no difference emerged
on the willingness to pay more for memberships based on respondents' income level.
The other avenue for revenue comes in philanthropy support. An overwhelming 63%of members who
responded to this question indicated a willingness to make a gift in support of The Center. Most would
make a gift to whatever The Center identifies as its greatest need. Allowing The Center to continue its
good work and providing this services for future generations topped the list of reasons they would make
a gift. Self -reported income indicates that a number of respondents have sufficient revenue to make a
major gift to The Center. Equally important, nearly 100 individuals said they would join a development
committee and volunteer to help The Center staff raise this money. People who reported lower incomes
indicated a slightly higher willingness to volunteer than those with higher incomes, perhaps wanting to
make a difference at The Center in the way they best could.
Study Process
This study proceeded through two steps. The first conducted eight focus groups that attracted 73
individuals and asked open-ended questions designed to gather broad opinions regarding The Center's
strengths and weaknesses. A copy of the focus group questions appears in Appendix A. Held the last two
weeks of May, Table 1 outlines the groups included in each focus group and the number of attendees at
each.
Constituent Group
N
Members
8
Volunteers
14
Volunteer leaders
10
Service organizations
6
Staff
7
Lapsed/prospective members
7
Government officials
6
Donors
15
At the conclusion of the audio -recorded and transcribed focus groups— led by Linda Wastyn of Wastyn
& Associates, survey tested the assumptions and ideas generated by the focus group participants with a
larger audience. The survey contained 32 closed -ended questions that asked respondents their
perceptions of The Center, how they learned about The Center, how they get information in general,
and their willingness to both pay more for their membership and make a philanthropic contribution to
The Center in addition to their membership. A copy of the survey appears in Appendix B. Question logic
imbedded into the on-line versions (website and email) allowed respondents to skip questions that did
not pertain to them based on previous answers. Hardcopies of the surveys did not have this option.
Survey distribution occurred three ways: an email directly to all individuals for whom The Center had a
valid email address (using Survey Monkey), a link on The Center's website and Facebook page, and a
Lr►�!1&/A�W S p 3 September 8, 2015
"S Sj0 CI A T E S
hardcopy mailed to members and nonmembers in The Center's service area. All totaled, respondents
returned 1,121 valid surveys through the following channels:
Survey Vehicle
N
Email (Survey Monkey)
738
Website
135
Hard copy
249
We could not use a handful of returned hardcopy surveys due to incomplete data (missing
demographics). Even with those excluded, the strong response rate signals very strong confidence in the
data, results, and conclusions drawn. For example, through Survey Monkey, we sent 1,832 invitations to
respond to the survey (with three follow-up reminders). Of these, 150 bounced for a total of 1,682
individuals who could potentially receive the email. Of these, 1,191 (71%) opened the email and 738
(44%) completed the survey, an unheard of responses rate! For this type of survey, organizations
consider a response rate of 5-10%a success.
The survey provided an opportunity for individuals to enter a drawing for one of two gift certificates in
appreciation for their time. Just less than half (N=594) included their name for consideration of these
gifts.
The pages that follow provide the major findings from this survey —supplemented with insights learned
from the focus groups — as they inform the three major questions it sought to answer:
(1) How can The Center better market itself to attract more members?
(2) Can The Center raise membership fees without having a deleterious effect on membership
numbers and, if so, by how much?
(3) Does support exist for members (and others) to make philanthropic contributions to The
Center in addition to their membership fees? If so, what kinds of arguments will resonate with
them as part of a case for support?
Demographics of Respondent
Of the 1,121 survey respondents, three out of four identified themselves as female (N=832) with 283
men and 2 transgender individuals. The majority (56.4%) identified themselves as married or partnered
followed by divorced (18.5%), widowed (14.6%) or single/never married (10.5%). This mirrored the
question that asked how many individuals reside in their household: 55% lived with one other member,
37.1% lived alone with the balance living with 3 or more individuals.
] I N 4 September 8, 2015
&ASSOCIATES
Individuals 50 years of age or older qualify for membership at The Center, although some younger
individuals participate in some of their programs or outreach activities. The age of respondents mirrored
almost perfectly a bell curve with the majority (44.2%) between the ages of 65 and 75 years old followed
by those 75-84 years old (22.9%) and those 50-64 years old (21.1%).
50
45
40
35
30
25 —
20 —
15 —
10
0
Age of Respondent (%)
Youngerthan 50-64yeam 65-74 yea 75-84yeam Olderthan 85
50 old old old
Consistent with the age of respondents, 71.8% reported their employment status as retired, followed by
14.3%who work full-time, and 9.7%who work part-time. Of the rest, 2.6%indicated that they could not
work, 2.5%as unemployed and not looking for work and 0.9%as unemployed and looking for work.
1.9% checked "other"; their comments indicate that many own small businesses or other self-
employment situation, freelance, have a disability, have multiple part-time jobs, consult or volunteer
extensively.
The majority of respondents come from Iowa City (75.3%) followed by Coralville (8.2%), unincorporated
areas within Johnson County (6.5%), other Johnson County cities and towns (3.9%), outside of Johnson
County (4.4%) and North Liberty (1.9%).
An overwhelming number of respondents identified themselves as White (96.6%) followed by Black or
African American (1.2%). This over represents the number of White residents in Iowa City:
Race
Survey Respondents
Iowa City (2010)*
White
96.6%
82.5%
Black or African -American
1.2%
5.8%
Asian
0.9%
6.9%
Hispanic/Latino
0.7%
5.3%
Native American or Alaskan Native
0.6%
0.2%
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander
0.2%
<.05%
Other
1%
2.5%
*Source: US Census Bureau
] I. N 5 September 8, 2015
&ASSOCIATES
Focus group participants lamented a lack of diversity at The Center, these results either confirm that
observation or point to an under -representation of non-White Center members and Iowa City residents
who completed the survey. Either way, the resultant data over -represents the view of White individuals
rather than minorities. Opinions of other racial and ethnic groups will require additional, focused
research. Results later in the survey also suggest that The Center could improve its diversity.
Focus group members also mentioned lack of educational diversity with, they perceive, an
overabundance of highly educated members. The survey respondents followed suit with 47.2% having
earned a graduate or professional degree, followed by 28.7%who earned a bachelor's degree. Only
7.3% earned a high school degree or less. This sample over -represents the number of college educated
residents in Iowa City that totaled 58.0%in 2013 (Source: US Census Bureau).
Not surprisingly, the majority of respondents identified themselves as a current Center member (63.1%)
followed by "never been a member' (17.2%) and former member (15.4%).
Current Center member
63.1%
"I have never been a member of The Center"
17.2%
Former Center member
15.4%
Center volunteer
11.6%
Donor to The Center
9.9%
Member of The Center Commission
2.2%
Staff
1.1 %
The ability to choose multiple categories makes these numbers non -additive. Interestingly, no
statistically -significant differences emerged on the opinions expressed in response to the rest of the
survey questions based on the respondents' relationship to The Center.
Of the Center members, the length of time they have been a member represents a skewed bell -curve
with nearly half (48.2%) a member for 1-5 years, followed by 6-10 years (20.0%).
rn
50
40
30
20
10
Years of Membership (%)
Less than 1year 1-5 years 6-10 years
More than 10 years
�//��N 6 September 8, 2015
Lr►�!1&/ASS Sj0 CLLL I TTTA T E S
The same shape appears for distance traveled to reach The Center with most members (73.5%) traveling
from 1 to 5 miles.
90
70
60
so
40
30
20
10
Distance traveled to The Center (%)
Lessthan 1 mile 1-5 miles 5-10miles More than 10 miles
The vast majority (76.1%) drive themselves, followed by 12.4% who walk or bike, 4.7% have someone
else drive them, 4.3%take a fixed bus system and 1.5%rely on SEATS. Focus group participants and the
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee identified transportation issues as a potential barrier for many who
might choose to attend The Center. These data suggest that members overwhelmingly rely on
themselves to drive, walk, or bike to The Center. Whether the significant drop in the number who rely
on others (private or public transportation) confirms that such a barrier exists or that members stop
coming to The Center when their physical and mental condition reach a point where they can no longer
drive requires additional study and analysis. That is, does needing public transportation becomes a
symptom of a larger issue that keeps individuals from using The Center rather than a barrier itself?
Marketing Findings
A significant theme emerged in the focus groups that many in the community do not know about The
Center or have misperceptions about what it offers. This confirmed an operating assumption of the
study that stronger marketing efforts could inform more people about The Center, dispel any
misperceptions that exist, and serve as an important vehicle for increasing membership.
The survey asked specific questions about marketing avenues and marketing messages.
Avenues for Marketing: The ways in which individuals learn about The Center asked two separate
questions:
• How did they first learn of The Center (to become members)?
• How do they prefer to learn about Center activities once they became members?
Because of the nature of the question, only members had access to these questions in the online survey.
Six hundred forty-two members answered the first question (how they first learned about The Center);
727 answered the question about how they prefer to learn about program offerings.
Lr►�!1&/W S P 7 September 8, 2015
ASS Sj0 Ct A T E S
The majority of individuals (54.4%) first learned of The Center when a friend or personal contact
suggested they check it out. This confirms some of the comments made at the focus groups that
proposed that a "bring a friend" events might encourage new members to join. The other ways tested
paled in comparison:
60
50
40
30
20
—
10
Personal Program
Program
Newspaper
Attended Website Televisionad Center TV
Contact guide mailed
guide in
article
program program
to my home
public place
sponsored by
another
organization
No one chose "radio show," "Facebook," or "YouTube channel" as the way they first learned of The
Center and only one person chose "this survey." One hundred and three individuals wrote comments,
most of which reflect one of the choices noted above. Others noted that they have walked by The
Center, they or someone they know lived in Ecumenical Towers, through the band or other special
interest group, don't remember, or "have always known about it." A complete list of the open-ended
responses appears in Appendix C.
For continued information about The Center's program offerings, the majority (63.8%) prefer printed
materials mailed to their home followed by emails (14.7%), printed materials picked up at The Center or
elsewhere (14.4%), and The Center or city website (4.7%). Other options (web calendars on various
sites), social media and text messages) received 1%or less of the responses. Taken together, more than
three -fourths of the members rely on the program guide to learn of ongoing Center programs. Although
not prompted, the program guide generated a lot of discussion in some of the focus groups. Those who
knew of it described it as overwhelming, confusing, and generally a lot of work to digest unless they
sought something specific (e.g., "Is yoga still taught on Tuesday at 10 AM?"). While they commended
The Center on assimilating such diverse and comprehensive offerings into a concise guide, they would
prefer something a little more "user friendly." Weekly or monthly calendars or lists of offerings by date
emerged as two recommendations that resonated with the rest of that focus group.
Finally, we asked respondents which of the following sources they consult frequently as sources of
information about local events and programs of interest. Because they could choose more than one
option, percentages do not add up to 100. More than two-thirds rely on the Iowa City Press -Citizen
Lr►�!1&/W S p 8 September 8, 2015
ASS Sj0 Ct A T E S
(67.8%) followed by word of mouth (59.9%), and promotional materials received at home (48.4%). At
the other end of the spectrum, fewer than one in five rely on commercial radio (8.3%), the Daily Iowan
(15.9%), TV advertisements (17.5%) or social media (19.2%).
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
�a 5
ok °� \op o'ooOa
Qia ota Qua
F a Q
S� Qio Q otc \oy� G°ca
Forty-seven people added comments on this questions which appear in Appendix D. Afew mentioned
Little Village Magazine; others listed different internet-based news sources.
Marketing Messages: The survey asked members to rank, on a four -point Likert scale, eleven possible
reasons for joining The Center. On this question —and all of the rating questions in the survey — each
answer receives a weight from one to four with 1= not important at all and 4 = very important. All had
an option of "N/A or No opinion" which did not compute in the final analysis. For all of these questions,
the higher the number, the more highly the respondents rated it.
On this first questions, "Courses (multiple -session programs)" received the highest rating at 3.34
indicating that people find this "important' to "very important," closely followed by "lectures (one-time
programs)" at 3.01, exercise classes at 2.95, and exercise/fitness equipment at 2.91. Recall that a rating
of 4.0 would indicate unanimous support that the item was "very important' to their decision to join
The Center. This confirms the comments made at the focus groups.
] I. N 9 September 8, 2015
&ASSOCIATES
Answer Options
Rating
Average
Courses multiple -session programs)
3.34
Lectures one-time programs)
3.01
Exercise classes
2.95
Exercise/fitness equipment
2.91
Services e. .,tax preparation, Medicare counseling)
2.73
Performance groups music,theatre,dance
2.73
Assistance withlechnology
2.71
The Centers Accreditation
2.62
Volunteer programs (e.g., quilters,CenterTelevision,
2.50
Special interestgroups (e.g., cards,games)
2.40
Meal program
1.96
The next question sought to confirm these data and force a single choice by asking what single factor
encouraged them to join. Again, the courses or multi -session programs emerged as the clear winner
with 39.8%of the respondents choosing this option. Interestingly, while members rate the lectures as an
important reason theyjoined, when forced to choose only one, it falls near the bottom with only 3.2%
saying lectures were the primary reason they joined The Center. This points to multifaceted decision -
making and the ability to have a variety of activities as a motivation for joining, again, a theme that
emerged in the focus groups.
Courses (multi -session programs)
39.8%
Exercise/fitness equipment
16.2%
Exercise classes
13.3%
Performance groups (music, theatre, dance)
10.7%
Services (e.g., tax preparation, Medicare counseling)
5.9%
Special interest groups (e.g., cards, games)
3.3%
Lectures (one-time programs)
3.2%
Volunteer programs (e.g., quilters, Center TV)
2.6%
Assistance with technology
2.6%
The Center's accreditation
0.9%
Forty-seven people added a comment on this question, most of which reiterate a previous selection, fit
better with the next question, or lament having to choose only one. Those appear in Appendix E.
In addition to the activities that The Center offers, many focus group participants described joining
because of the way belonging to The Center and participating in its activities made them feel. The next
question tested those feeling, giving members eleven to rate on a 4-point Likert scale where the higher
the number means they rated it as more important in their decision to join The Center. Of the 701
people who answered this question, the ability to stay active receive the highest support at 3.39
followed closely by mental and intellectual stimulation at 3.36.
] I N 10 September 8, 2015
&ASSOCIATES
Answer Options
Rating
Average
Stay active
3.39
Mental/intellectual stimulation
3.36
Location
3.15
Social interaction
3.12
Convenience
3.05
Price
2.99
To meetnew people
2.97
To feel valued; have a sense of purpose or belonging
2.89
Building
2.85
Volunteer/contribute to the community
2.62
Opportunity to teach others
2.34
When forced to choose only one of these, mental and intellectual stimulation came out on top with
41.4% of members choosing it followed by staying active by 28.9% of the 654 people who answered this
question. Social interaction received the next highest selection by 12.8%. The balance had 3.5% (N=23)
or fewer people select it. Forty-eight people made a comment on this question, many of which more
appropriately describe activities rather than feelings as a reason why they joined (e.g., New Horizon's
Band, Medicare counseling, computer class), the inability to choose between them, or because a spouse
wanted to join. All of these responses appear in Appendix F.
The survey asked a parallel set of questions for nonmembers and lapsed members to understand what
prevents them from joining The Center or kept them from re -joining once their membership expired.
Using the same 4-point Likert scale, "too busy to add another activity" emerged as the main reason for
the 294 individuals who responded to this question, although with a total score of 2.74 that ranks lower
than "important" which would total 3.0. The next set of reasons all revolve around parking issues,
important for the majority of individuals who drive themselves to The Center. This also confirms the
conversations at the focus groups in which individuals talked about how many activities they have
become involved in after retirement and that they do not find time to add another obligation. Some
focus group participants took this idea a step further and indicated that they prefer the programs that
meet only once or a limited number of times because they do not want to have to answer to a schedule,
even one they create themselves.
] I N 11 September 8, 2015
&ASSOCIATES
Answer Options
Rating
Av®reg®
Too busy to add another activity
2.74
Paying for parking
2.50
Trouble finding parking
2A3
Don't like the parking ramp
2.26
Location notconvenient
2.22
Does not offer programsthatinterestme
2.16
Notforme
2.14
I don't know what The Centeroffers
2.05
Programs of interestare full
2.02
Not open when I wantto use it
2.01
Notwelcoming
2.00
Cost is too high
1.99
Not enough handicapped parking spots
1.94
No swimming pool
1.92
Si na einthe parking ramp
1.90
Idon't considerm selfasenior
1.90
Not physically accessible
1.79
Iamnot eligible formembershi lam not et50 years old
1.71
I need more helpwithactivities ofdaily living Man staff can provide
1A7
We also forced respondents to choose the single factor that most significantly impacted their decision
not to join The Center or not to renew their membership. "Too busy to add another activity" again
emerged at the top reason, chosen by 33.33% of the 291 individuals who answered this question.
"Location not convenient" ranked a distant second with only 8.9%of individuals choosing this option.
Interestingly, only 3.4% (N=10) noted that The Center's hours did not fit their schedule (e.g., "not open
when I want to use it"), contradicting a conversation at the focus groups that the paucity of evening and
weekend hours might hurt membership. Similarly, only 3.8%indicated that paying for parking prevented
them from joining, followed by "don't like the parking ramp" at 2.8%and "trouble finding parking" at
2.1%. Tied at 3.8%with "paying for parking," eleven people found The Center "not welcoming" or do not
consider themselves a senior.
The last set of questions that shed light on marketing messages asked people to use the same 4-point
Likert Scale to rate how well a list of 26 words describe The Center followed by rating how important
they felt each of those 26 words were when describing the ideal center. We review these data in two
ways. First, we look at the raw scores to see which words they feel best describe and should describe
The Center. Second, we look for discrepancies. That is, do some words describe the ideal but not the
current center? These become areas where brand messages may not conform to reality.
Consistent with the reasons people join The Center, "educational" emerged as the top word with a
strong rating of 3.47 followed very closely by "quality" (3.43), "open to all seniors" (3.42), "safe" (3.41),
"active" and "clean" (3.40 each), and "helpful" and "seniors helping seniors" (3.38 each). The three
more words with more negative connotations: "old" (2.40), "elitist" (1.87) and "stuffy" (1.83) — all words
heard in the focus groups —fell to the bottom of the list but, perhaps, higher than desirable.
] I N 12 September 8, 2015
&ASSOCIATES
Answer Options
Rating
Average
Educational
3.47
Quality
3.43
Open to all seniors
3.42
Safe
3.41
Active
3.40
Clean
3.40
Helpful
3.38
"Seniors helping seniors"
3.38
Stimulating
3.35
Friendly
3.34
Something foreveryone
3.32
Social
3.30
Community
3.29
Fun
3.25
Welcoming
3.24
Caring
3.22
Engaging
3.19
Camaraderie
3.16
Inclusive
3.15
Vibrant
3.06
Diverse
3.05
Homey
2.91
Multigenerational
2.76
Old
2.40
Elitist
1.87
Stuffy
1.83
When we look at the importance people ascribe to these same words, we see a different order but
general agreement that those at the top of the list belong at the top of the list and those at the bottom
of the list belong at the bottom of the list. "Open to all seniors" topped the list at 3.62 followed by
"safe" at 3.60; "welcoming" (3.57); "helpful' (3.54); "friendly" (3.53); "quality" (3.51); and "simulating,"
"educational," and "clean" at 3.50; and "active" at 3.49. Interestingly, the words that rose to the top of
this list describe the way The Center makes individuals feel, with the more tangible "educational' falling
to a tie for 71h (though still very important to them).
] I N 13 September 8, 2015
&ASSOCIATES
Answer Options
Rating
Average
Open to all seniors
3.62
Safe
3.60
Welcoming
3.57
Helpful
3.54
Friendly
3.53
Quality
3.51
Stimulating
3.50
Educational
3.50
Clean
3.50
Active
3.49
Caring
3.46
Community
3.46
Inclusive
3.43
Something foreveryone
3.42
Social
3.41
Diverse
3.39
Engaging
3.38
Fun
3.38
"Seniors helping seniors"
3.36
Vibrant
3.31
Camaraderie
3.27
Multigenerational
2.95
Homey
2.87
Old
1.77
Elitist
1.53
Stuffy
1.52
When we look at the differences between the perceived importance of each word and their ratings in
terms of quality, we find that respondents see the largest gaps in terms of "diverse" (0.34), "welcoming"
(0.33) and "inclusive" (0.28). "Vibrant' and "caring" come next at 0.25 and 0.24, respectively, not large
differences but enough to cause pause when developing the marketing messages. These data also
confirm earlier findings and focus group discussions that suggested not everyone felt welcomed at The
Center.
At the other end of the scale, participants felt that The Center exhibits qualities of stuffiness (-0.31),
elitism (-0.34) and old (-0.63) more than desired. The data does not differentiate between the age of the
building and the age of the participants; both emerged in the focus groups as topics of discussion. Some
loved the old, historic building; others lamented the limitations that such an old building has for
programming, especially on the flexibility (or lack thereof) of the space. Similarly, some felt that other
people perceived The Center as a place for "old people" to sit around and "wait to die" (my words, not
theirs). Focus group participants did not see it that way at all.
] I N 14 September 8, 2015
&ASSOCIATES
Answer Options
Importance
Quality
Difference
Diverse
3.39
3.05
0.34
Welcoming
3.57
3.24
0.33
Inclusive
3A3
3.15
0.28
Vibrant
3.31
3.06
0.25
Caring
3.46
3.22
0.24
Open to all seniors
3.62
3A2
0.20
Multigenerational
2.95
2.76
0.19
Engaging
3.38
3.19
0.19
Friendly
3.53
3.34
0.19
Safe
3.60
3A1
0.19
Community
3.46
3.29
0.17
Helpful
3.54
3.38
0.16
Stimulating
3.50
3.35
0.15
Fun
3.38
3.25
0.13
Social
3.41
3.30
0.11
Camaraderie
3.27
3.16
0.11
Clean
3.50
3.40
0.10
Something for everyone
3.42
3.32
0.10
Active
3.49
3.40
0.09
Quality
3.51
3.43
0.08
Educational
3.50
3A7
0.03
"Seniors helping seniors"
3.36
3.38
-0.02
Homey
2.87
2.91
-0.04
Stuffy
1.52
1.83
-0.31
Elitist
1.53
1 1.87
-0.34
Old
1.77
1 2.40
-0.63
No statistically -significant differences emerged for any of these findings based on membership status
(members, former members, and non-members), age, income, education, or place of residence. All had
similar perceptions of The Center.
Membership Fees Findings
Raising fees emerged in focus groups as a way to raise more money for The Center. Many commented
that current membership fees paled in comparison to what they would pay for a health club
membership or to participate in a single class at the University's Senior College or another venue.
Obviously raising the cost of membership becomes an "easy" and predicable source of increased
revenue if it does not cause members to flee.
The survey tested that premise in two ways. First, the survey asked the value members perceive from
their membership with five options: "worth much more than I pay," "worth more than I pay," "worth
what I pay," "worth less than I pay," and "worth much less than I pay." More than half (52.6%) felt that
membership was worth much more than they pay, followed by worth what they pay (26.9%). Only 3.3%
] I N 15 September 8, 2015
&ASSOCIATES
felt they got less than they deserved based on what they pay for their membership, a good sign for the
positive perceptions of the members and their willingness to absorb a price increase.
Response
%
The Center membership is worth much more than I pay
52.6%
The Center membership is worth what I pay
17.3%
The Center membership is worth what I pay
26.9%
The Center membership is worth less than I pay
2.4%
The Center membership is worth much less than I pay
0.9%
The next question asked them to "put their money where their mouth is;" specifically, if they would pay
more for their membership and, if so, how much? Nearly nine out of ten (86.8%) would pay more for
their membership if asked. The amounts varied with the majority (60.9%) willing to pay $5-20 more per
person per year.
Response
%
I would pay $5-$20 more per person/year for my membership
60.9%
1 would pay $21-$40 more per person/year for my membership
15.1%
1 would pay $41-$60 more per person/year for my membership
6.3%
1 would pay more than $60 more per person/year for my membership
4.6%
1 would not pay any more for my membership
13.2%
These data bode well for a possible membership fee increase. I suggest that The Center's price elasticity
lies probably closer to the $21-$40 level than the lower level for two reasons. First, people tend to
choose the lower dollar amount that falls within their comfort zone, fearful of too high a jump. Given
the overwhelmingly positive feelings for The Center expressed throughout this survey and in the focus
groups, the "true" answer probably lies closer to $30 than $5. Second, the order of the answers —from
lowest dollar amount to largest — suggests that people may have chosen the first response they saw and
to which they agreed. They may not have even looked down the list for higher dollar amounts which
they may have selected if presented first. The previous response that members overwhelmingly
perceive that they receive much more value for their membership than they pay provides additional
support for the suggestion that prices electricity probably exists closer to $30 per person/year rather
than $5.
No differences emerged on the perceptions of the value of membership based on respondents' income
level.
Fundraising Finding
Philanthropic fundraising represents the next avenue for raising potential revenue. Donations come
from individuals with an inclination (willingness) and capacity (wealth) to make a gift to an organization.
This survey sought to gather information on both of these elements.
First, it asked outright if members would consider making a philanthropic gift to The Center in addition
to their membership fee. An overwhelming 63.1%of the 708 who answered this question indicated they
would. If each of these individuals made a very modest gift of $100, The Center would raise nearly
Lr►�!1&/A�W S p 16 September 8, 2015
"S Sj0 CI A T E S
$45,000! The Strategic Fundraising Plan will outline ways to secure these and even more funds from
individuals.
Second, it asked individuals their annual household income to gather information on capacity. Of the
individuals who completed this optional question on the survey, a bell curve emerges in their income
levels with most earning between $50,000 and $74,999 (22.7%) followed closely by $35,000 to $49,999
(16.4%) and $75,000 to $99,999 (15.8%). Ninety-five individuals declined to answer this question.
25
20
15
10
Annual Household Income (%)
Less than $10,000 - $15,000 - $25,000 - $35,000 - $50,000 - $75,000 - $100,000-$150,000 - $200,000
$10,000 $14,999 $24,999 $34,999 $49,999 $74,999 $99,999 $149,999 $199,999 +
The great news for The Center: individuals with a relationship to The Center have both the inclination
and capacity to make philanthropic gifts to the organization. The Strategic Fundraising Plan will outline a
plan for identifying, securing, and stewarding these gifts. A slightly greater likelihood — but not
statistically significant one —to donate emerged for individuals at the higher income levels. Seventy-one
percent of those earning $100,000 to $149,999 indicated that they would likely make a financial
contribution to The Center while only 56% of those earning $25,000 to $34,999 indicated they would.
That bodes well for a major gift campaign since 90% of your contributions should come from 10% of
your donors or those with the greatest capacity (wealth).
The next part of developing a successful fundraising program relies on creating a compelling case for
support. In this way, fundraising and marketing work hand -in -hand. Many of the items identified in the
marketing questions also work for developing the case for supporting The Center with philanthropic
gifts. That is, those things that likely encouraged individuals to join will resonate when they decide
whether or not to make a gift. Of those who responded in the affirmative that they would consider
making a gift to The Center, the survey asked what aspect of The Center they would prefer to support.
Overwhelmingly (74.9%), they said they would support "wherever The Center has the greatest need"
followed by "day-to-day operations (9.1%), "special projects and items" (8.5%) and "endowment'
(7.5%).
] I. N 17 September 8, 2015
&ASSOCIATES
The next question asked individuals what would motivate them to make a gift to The Center. Consistent
with the literature, the tax deductibility of the gift fell to the bottom of the list. Using the same four -
point Likert scale as in the previous questions where the higher number equates to higher importance,
assuring the viability of The Center (3.55) and for future generations (3.43) received the highest ratings
followed by facility maintenance (3.38) and "to give others the same opportunities I have" (3.23).
Answer Options
Rating
Average
To assure thatThe Center rema ins via ble
3.55
To assure thatThe Center remains forfuture generations
3.43
1 believe it is importantto maintain the facilities
3.38
To give others the same opportunities I have
3.23
My responsibility tosupport im orLant community organization
3.18
1feel goodwhen Ican supportTheCenter
3.10
1 receive more value for my membership than I pay
3.06
Fortax benefits
2AII
Ten people made comments, most of which indicated that they either already made donations or could
not make a donation at this time. One person commented that "this is what I get back from property
taxes" which points to a possible negative perception to giving that the case for support will need to
address: as a tax supported organization, why should individuals give in essence a third time (e.g., taxes,
membership, gift)?
Success of this effort requires a cadre of dedicated, trained volunteers willing to work with staff on
behalf of this fundraising effort. The survey asked members if they would volunteer on a fundraising
committee for The Center. Ninety-nine individuals responded in the affirmative. Interestingly, those at
the lower income levels indicated a willingness to volunteer in much greater numbers than those at the
upper ends; 24%of those with reported incomes between $25,000 and $34,999 indicated a willingness
to volunteer while only 9%of those earning between $100,000 and $149,999 did. Perhaps those at the
lower end of the economic ladder want to contribute and believe they can better contribute their time
than their money. The 52 individuals willing to volunteer on the fundraising committee left their name
and contact information on the survey.
Conclusions
The Center is well positioned to increase the revenue it generates through membership revenue and
philanthropic support. Even before this study, the genuine love and support for The Center came
through in the media reports around the Ad Hoc Committee. The focus groups confirmed that, both in
numbers of participants and in the substance of their comments, as did the survey. Very few negative
comments emerged.
As a next step, The Center needs to decide on its marketing messages and avenues as well as future
membership fees. This study provides data to support appropriate avenues for marketing as well as the
messages that will likely resonate with current and future members. Finally, the data strongly supports
increases in membership fees, up to $40/person peryear.
Lr►�!1&/A�W S p 18 September 8, 2015
"S Sj0 CI A T E S
Very strong support also exists for raising funds by soliciting donations. Most organizations would kill to
have 66%of their constituents indicate a willingness to support the organization financially! Even the
strongest college alumni association —often touted as the hallmark in constituent engagement —fails to
reach this level of engagement. Strong potential exists. The Strategic Fundraising Plan will outline a
series of steps and activities to effectively identify potential donors and major donors, educate them
about The Center's needs (in concert with the marketing plan), and then cultivate, solicit, and steward
their support. It will also include a volunteer recruitment and management plan, beginning with the
more than 50 individuals who already stepped forward indicating their willingness to work as part of a
Fundraising Committee for The Center.
] I N 19 September 8, 2015
&ASSOCIATES
9 Making Ideas Happen Through
Integrated Fundraising Consulting
WAS TYN
A ASSOCIATES
Iowa City/Johnson County Senior Center
Fundraising Plan
November 13, 2015
Introduction and overview
In February 2014, the City Council of Iowa City appointed an Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee to
evaluate the current vision, mission and programming of The Center with input from center staff and
members of the public as well as a review of existing reports and related documents concerning The
Center. This Ad Hoc Committee's appointment came from the city's concerns about declining revenue as
a result of statewide property tax reform and a trend of declining federal assistance. This fundraising
plan provides one means The Center can increase revenue through philanthropic means.
A mature fundraising operation raises money from individuals, corporations, foundations and bequests.
Nationally, about 85%of all funds given to nonprofit organizations comes from individuals which
includes family foundations and bequests. That leaves 15%from corporations and non -family
foundations. For organizations with less than a $1 million budget, the percent contributed by individuals
falls to 36% of all donated funds with 58% of that revenue coming from major donors which the study
defines as gifts of more than $1,000. Seventeen percent of this revenue came from online donations.
The number one variable that determined fundraising success in the above referenced study: a
fundraising plan. Organizations with a fundraising plan saw a $5,000 increase in donor revenue from
each donor meeting. How closely the organization followed that plan had no impact on this outcome.
Furthermore, organizations with a plan raised an average of $4.25 for every dollar invested in the salary
of their primary fundraiser which points to the need for and payoff of hiring someone to focus on
fundraising for The Center.
These data have important implications for the fundraising plan for the Iowa City/Johnson County Senior
Center.
• The plan itself becomes an important tool for fundraising success
• The plan needs to focus on raising funds from individuals as well as corporations and
foundations
• The plan functions within the constraints of the organization and its environment (as outlined in
the next section). However, The Center will likely raise more money if it invests in hiring a
person with primary responsibility for fundraising at least part-time
This plan assumes that The Center will secure at least half of its annual budget through membership fees
and revenue raised from gifts. It assumes that each means will contribute 25%toward the bottom line
or $200,000 annually. This plan uses a 5 year time horizon to achieve that goal for fundraising.
Linda@WastynAssoc.com • (563)210-1321 • www.WastynAssoc.com
The Center's Fundraising Environment
The Center and the Friends of The Center currently solicit individuals passively throughout the year and
actively through an annual appeal sent near the end of the year by The Friends group. More on Friends
later. The quarterly Program Guide also provides an opportunity for individuals to add a gift to their
membership or class fees.
The annual appeal letter sent by the Friends of the Center the last two year included a soft ask:
• "By making a tax deductible gift of $500, $100, $50, $25 or other amount to Friends of The
Center, we can expand our outreach to low-income and minority adults and continue to provide
innovative programs and services that enhance the quality of life for our current participants.
Please, help us make sure that everyone can access the valuable services offered here." (2013)
• "If The Center makes a difference in your life, or the lives of people you know, please join me by
making an additional investment with a gift to the Friends of The Center." (2014)
In FY15, The Friends of The Center received contributions from 111 individuals that totaled $34,425
including a gift of $17,000 from one individual. Four other entities gave gifts directly to the Center that
total $10,250 for a total of $44,500 raised for The Center's operations.
Opportunities in the Fundraising Environment
The Center has a very strong base of supporters among its members and the community at large. A
survey conducted in summer 2015 found that an overwhelming 63.1%of the 708 who answered this
question would make a charitable contribution to The Center in addition to their membership fee. This
inclination to make a gift exists among a large number of Center members provides a very strong
foundation upon which to build a fundraising program.
When looking at capacity or the wealth of The Center's members, the survey revealed that most self -
reported earning between $50,000 and $74,999 (22.7%) followed closely by $35,000 to $49,999 (16.4%)
and $75,000 to $99,999 (15.8%). A slightly greater likelihood — but not a statistically significant one — to
donate emerged for individuals at the higher income levels. Seventy-one percent of those earning
$100,000 to $149,999 indicated that they would likely make a financial contribution to The Center while
only 56% of those earning $25,000 to $34,999 indicated they would.
Wealth data confirms the assumption that The Center members have sufficient wealth to make a major
gift. Wealth data comes from AccuData who appended wealth indicators to 1257 individual's names
supplied to them by The Center. Seventy-eight of these individuals have an estimated net worth of more
than $1 million. Nearly 300 have an estimated net worth of more than $500,000, the desired threshold
for major gifts.
Based on the standard that an individual can contribute approximately 2% of his or her net worth over 5
years, these data suggest that if properly cultivated, these Center members identified by AccuDataTM
have the capacity to make $3.78 million in gifts over 5 years. If we assume the national average that
25% will make a gift, this equates to $950,000 donated to The Center over 5 years or an average of
$189,000 per year. Adding to the reliability of these estimates, AccuData•" rated 137 of these highest
wealth individuals as "extremely likely to give" and another 34 as "highly likely to contribute." Survey
WAS oT A=N
data suggests that closer to 63%to 70%of these high net worth individuals will likely contribute to The
Center or 200 which would yield even higher results than those estimated here.
The survey also asked individuals if they would serve in a volunteer capacity to help raise funds for The
Center. Ninety-nine individuals responded in the affirmative; 52 left their name and contact information
and provides a strong beginning for a volunteer fundraising committee. Building a strong volunteer
group can help extend the organization's staff resources while increasing revenue for two reasons. First,
a study of wealthy individuals found that those who volunteer contribute 73% more to the organization
than those who do not volunteer. Second, people give to people. While staff gets paid to love The
Center, volunteers do not. Because of this, volunteers often make more compelling fundraisers
especially with individuals with whom they already have a relationship. When a member can tell
another member why he or she made a gift in addition to the membership fee, it can prove very
persuasive.
Challenges in the Fundraising Environment
While The Center has a strong, committed and relatively wealthy constitute base — necessary precursors
to fundraising success — it also faces a number of significant challenges to harnessing that passion to
raise money for the organization.
Staff: The Center has exceptional staff, clearly dedicated to their work and the individuals they serve.
That said, they work with a skeleton staff with everyone's time used to (and beyond) capacity. While
staff enthusiastically embrace the idea of fundraising for The Center and some have expressed a desire
to become actively involved in fundraising, in reality, a successful fundraising program requires an
investment of time beyond that which the current staff has available. Raising the amount of money
desired will require a focus on major donors — those with the capacity and willingness to contribute
$1,000 or more to The Center annually. Major donor fundraising relies on relationship building. While
The Center has the advantage over many nonprofits because staff has a relationship with many of its
members, staff still need to invest time to develop a donor relationship with major gift prospects. These
take time and dedicated time that the staff does not currently have.
I recommend expanding the capacity of the staff by developing an active volunteer solicitation
committee. The 52 people from the survey who indicated a willingness to serve in this capacity provides
a strong starting point.
➢ RECOMMENDATION #1: Recruit and train a volunteer fundraising committee to take an active
role in major gift and annual fund fundraising
However, recruiting, training, and managing volunteers can take almost as much time as the fundraising
itself. The Center will need to dedicate at least 0.50 FTE to this role for the plan to succeed.
➢ RECOMMENDATION #2: Expand the capacity of the staff by hiring and training at least 0.5 FIE
(preferably 1.0 FIE) dedicated to fundraising, donor relations, and volunteer management
City ownership: The Cityh ownership of The Center and reliance on the City for budgeting and approval
of purchases makes fundraising more complicated. Gifts directly to The Center in essence become
absorbed into the City's budget because they offset what the City needs to fund. That makes a less than
FA5 oTA�N
compelling case to constituents who already support The Center with their tax dollars; in essence, they
give their money to the City twice (or three times if you count their membership).
The Center has circumvented this problem in the past by giving donors the option to make a
contribution to the Friends of The Center. While the City still approves expenditures from the Friends'
budget, the Friends remain totally separate from the City budget and provide the only means (other
than endowment) for individuals to make a gift that has a direct impact on The Center's operations and
special projects. This differentiation becomes too confusing for donors and may cause some to not make
a gift at all rather than risk making a donation in the "wrong" way.
➢ RECOMMENDATION #3: Accept donations only through the Friends of The Center; cease
accepting any contributions directly to The Center and funnel them all through the Friends
organization
This may legally change recommendation #1 to have the Friends group hire a fundraising professional;
we will need to discuss the implications in more depth before making a final determination of the best
structural way to accomplish these two recommendations but that does not change the essence of the
recommendations themselves.
Lack of Experience: The Center staff has very little if any experience with fundraising other than the
passive ways they have sought funds in the past. Their enthusiasm and desire to undertake such a plan
bodes well for the likelihood of future success, but they should also look to invest in professional
development for their staff person primarily responsible for fundraising as well as key volunteers and all
Center staff. Fundraising will have more success to the extent that a culture of philanthropy extends
throughout the organization. That culture begins at the top with the executive director and the
fundraising professional but everyone in the organization must understand and embrace his or her role
in fundraising for this plan to succeed. This becomes especially important with limited staff time to
invest in fundraising.
➢ RECOMMENDATION #4: Identify and invest in continuing education foram staff —but
especially the executive director and fundraising staff — on fundraising -related topics. I
recommend starting with the Eastern Iowa Chapter of the Association of Fundraising
Professionals and looking at other state and national programs
The Fundraising Plan
The following plan outlines the steps and recommendations to build a comprehensive fundraising
program that will generate $200,000 in annual fund support for The Center within 5 years. Moving from
raising a few thousand dollars per year to $200,000 per year will take time. I recommend the following
ambitious schedule of fundraising goals to reach this threshold in 5 years.
Year
Goal
% Increase
Baseline: FY15
$44,500
N/A
Year 1:FY16
$80,000
80%
Year2:FY17
$120,000
50%
Year3:FY18
$150,000
25%
Year4:FY19
$180,000
20%
Year5:FY20
$200,000
11%
EI
FA5 oT�A�N
This schedule takes into consideration the constraints just mentioned while taking advantage of the
strong commitment that members have for The Center. As noted in the introduction, it relies on
fundraising from individuals as well as corporations and foundations.
Major Gift Campaign: The foundation of any strong fundraising program lies in its major gifts program.
For the purposes of this proposal, I define a major gift as anything $500 or larger. In FY15, The Center
received only 14 donations of $500 or greater (either directly or through the Friends).
As a rule, 90%of all donations come from 10%of the donors so identifying and carefully cultivating and
soliciting those top 10%takes up the majority of time for a fundraising program. To raise $200,000 in
annual fund support will require a gift pyramid that looks like this:
$200,000 gift
pyramid
Gift Range
Average Gift
#gifts
# prospects
Total gifts
Culumative $
$ 50,000
$ 50,000
1
4
$ 50,000
$ 50,000
25%
$25,000 - 49,999
$ 25,000
1
4
$ 25,000
$ 75,000
389/o
$10,000 - 24,999
$ 12,500
3
12
$37,500
$ 112,500
569/o
$5,000- 9,999
$ 6,000
6
24
$ 36,000
$ 148,500
749/o
$1,000-4,999
$ 2,000
12
48
$24,000
$ 172,500
869/o
$500-999
$ 750
15
60
$11,250
$ 183,750
92%
$100-499
$ 250
30
120
$ 7,500
$ 191,250
969/o
Less than $100
$ 50
175
700
$ 8,750
$ 200,000
100%
TOTAL
243
972
$ -
This means moving from 14 donors who give $500 or more to 101 and a top gift from $17,000 to
$50,000 annually.
Successful fundraising proceeds through five steps: identification, education, cultivation, solicitation and
stewardship. The next steps in the plan walk through these five steps for the major gift program.
Identifying Major Donor Prospects: The survey indicated that a large percentage of your members have
a fairly high income. The next step involves identifying by name those members with the greatest wealth
which the wealth screening started to do. From there, we work with the list 300 individuals identified by
the wealth screening as having a net worth of $500,000 or greater to see who has the greatest affinity
for The Center based on the following criteria:
• Current donor
• Previous donor
• Current member
• Previous member
• Current volunteer
• Previous volunteer
• Other information known by staff or volunteers
We determine the first six items by cross-checking the wealth -screened list of top donors against the
membership, donor, and volunteer lists. We determine other types of affinity through a prospect
screening session held with staff and volunteers at which we ask those involved: (1) who on the list they
WAS oTA�N
know; (2) who on the list they will introduce to someone else who will ask for a gift; and (3) who on the
list they will ask for a gift. We also ask what they know about the person in terms of their wealth and
fondness for The Center as well as any individuals who could make a gift of more than $500 per year but
do not appear on this list. The results of this research become the prioritized list of major donor
prospects.
➢ RECOMMENDATION #5: Identify potential major donors using wealth screening data cross
referenced with donor, membership, and volunteer lists
➢ RECOMMENDATION #6: Conduct prospect screening sessions to further refine the major donor
prospect list
Educating and Cultivating Major Donor Prospects: Once you identify the major donor prospects, you
need to educate them about The Center's needs. This can occur in two ways: through mass information
(e.g., website, magazines, newspaper articles) and through targeted information. The former occurs as
part of the overall marketing plan. Some of those messages should include fundraising -based
information; that is, not only targeting reasons why individuals should join The Center but why they
should support it financially whether they become a member or not. In other words, these messages
should discuss the overall worth of The Center for individuals and the community at large.
Targeted information comes through meeting with individual prospects to give them more information
about The Center and the need for support. Once you identify the potential major donors, you should
create a customized plan for each that includes steps to educate, cultivate (get them involved in The
Center as a volunteer if not already), and solicit them for a gift. Depending on the individual, the
education and cultivation steps may be long or short; that is, someone who already contributes to or
volunteers for The Center may only need a brief reminder of the value of The Center and thanks for their
previous support before asking for a gift or an additional gift. Individuals less familiar with The Center or
less engaged currently may require more education and cultivation. This especially applies when talking
about corporate and foundation supporters, outlined below.
➢ RECOMMENDATION#7. Brainstorm ways to get prospective donors involve with The Center
and begin to invite targeted prospects to serve in those capacities
Soliciting Major Gifts —defined for the purposes of this plan as gifts of $500 or more —requires personal
contact with the donor and face-to-face solicitation. It also requires that the right person ask the right
prospect at the right time for the right amount. The work in the identification, education and cultivation
stages should set the stage for successful solicitations.
As part of the prospect screening sessions conducted in the identification stage, we asked volunteers
who they would feel comfortable soliciting for a gift and who they would introduce to others. As part of
the overall major gift plan, we assigned a solicitor to each major donor prospects using the data from
the prospect screening sessions to assign volunteers to solicit certain individuals. Part of that process
also involves identifying natural partners— individuals who could help in the solicitation process. Those
might include another volunteer, The Center coordinator, or other Center staff with whom the prospect
has a positive relationship.
➢ RECOMMENDATION #8: Identify the solicitation capacity of the staff and volunteers; conduct
training including mock major gift solicitations as appropriate
Once an individual asks a prospect for a gift, appropriate follow-up needs to occur. At a very minimum,
the volunteer should send a personal thank you for visiting with him or her immediately following any
visit. If the prospect did not make a decision on a gift, the volunteer or staff should follow up in an
appropriate amount of time to seek a decision. When receiving a gift, the stewardship plan kicks in, as
described below. Likewise, the internal gift receipt process gets initiated, also described below.
Annual fund/Mail Campaign: An annual fund campaign asks a broad range of constituents — in this case,
probably all members and former members for whom you have good contact information —to make a
gift to The Center. It excludes those identified as major gift prospects who will receive a personal ask in a
face-to-face setting. (However, if some major donor prospects have not received an ask by the end of
the calendar year, they should receive a mail appeal so that you ask them for a gift at least annually.)
Annual fund campaigns generally yield smaller gifts from an individuals' discretionary income. The
Center has some experience with these types of appeals as they have sent them in the past. To make
the annual fund campaign more successful, I recommend the following:
➢ RECOMMENDATION #9: Tie messaging of the annual fund campaign to the overall marketing
plan developed by Susan Shullaw and Robyn Hepker to have consistency across all channels
➢ RECOMMENDATION #10: Include a specific ask in the letter with a specific dollar amount; limit
the reason to give to one
For example, the ask might read: "Will you please make a gift of $50 to help The Centersustain its
current programs?" The research suggests that such a direct and specific ask yields generates more
money than a more general ask with multiple programs and different dollar amounts. The donor simply
has too many decisions to make in the latter scenario.
➢ RECOMMENDATION #11: Ask multiple times throughout the year and track which ask(s) get
the best response
More than half of an organization's contributed revenue tends to come during December so keep that
solicitation. However, every organization knows that and solicits their constituents during that month so
your letter needs to stand out from the others in terms of how you ask and for what you ask.
Furthermore, focus your ask on the individuals you serve not the needs of The Center. People give to
people. Let them give to the people you serve.
Also think of other times during the year when you can send a mail solicitation. Mid -year (June) often
proves a popular time as it falls in the middle of the year and for many ends their fiscal year. Other
nontraditional times that fit with your calendar and history may be appropriate as well including during
your September anniversary celebration. Experiment and see when your donors like to make
contributions and keep asking them during those months.
Finally, ask donors to give recurrent gifts — a monthly amount automatically deducted from their credit
card or bank account. These increase the overall gift from each donor and your overall funds raised.
Online donations: An increasing number of organizations have found success raising money online
including through social media and crowdfunding campaigns. However, this type of fundraising
campaign still pales compared to major gifts and annual funds and total less than 10%of all funds raised
nationally. While many sell crowdfunding campaigns as an "if you build it they will come" process that
7 u!/'ns'socinz�s
requires little effort on the organization's part, successful online campaigns require as much planning
and upfront investment of time and resources as any type of fundraising campaign does. They also
require an active online social community who will share your messages within their networks.
Given your constituents and their age as well as your constraints on time and resources, I do not
recommend an online donation campaign at this time. In the survey, less than 20% indicated that they
receive information about programs and events through social media. While not directly comparable,
that coincides with national data that suggests that older Americans, while active on social media, do
not tend to make contributions through these means. Instead, they prefer traditional means such as
letters and personal contact. As your demographic becomes more accustomed to social media and the
media evolves, this may become a viable means in the future and merits monitoring.
Endowment campaign: The Center (and the Friends) currently offers options for individuals to make a
contribution to The Center's endowment fund held by the Johnson County Community Foundation in
addition to gifts to the annual fund. Gifts to the endowment get held and invested in perpetuity to
provide a continuous source of revenue for The Center while annual fund gifts generally get spent in the
year received. I recommend creating a separate endowment campaign for individuals who choose to
give this way. Endowment becomes a very appealing option for donors who want to leave The Center in
their estate plans (below) or as memorial gifts.
➢ RECOMMENDATION #12: Keep options for both annual fund and endowment support
available to donors but solicit each using separate campaigns since they require different
messaging
Bequests and Memorial Gifts: Given your demographic, offering bequests and other types of planned
gifts in addition to memorial opportunities should prove very fruitful. Many seniors fear outliving their
assets; gifts to charity become an early sacrifice when they streamline their budgets. At the same time,
many hold significant assets in their retirement accounts and can realize significant tax benefits for
themselves and their heirs by leaving a portion of their estate to The Center upon their death (or the
death of their spouse).
You should integrate requests for estate gifts into your major gift program, especially if you can partner
with an attorney or trust officer (perhaps from among your membership) to answer the complicated
questions that will likely emerge. At a minimum, every major gift solicitation and pledge card should
include the opportunity and suggestion to make an estate gift and inform you of their intent.
➢ RECOMMENDATION #13: Partner with lawyers and/or trust officers to provide advice and
council on estate gifts which you should solicit as part of the major gift program. Volunteers
likely exist within your members. Consider creating an Estate Giving Council with a group of
volunteers to share the workload and create natural succession
Likewise, asking people to suggest that people make a gift to The Center when a loved one passes away
becomes an important source of more passive income. Marketing memorial gifts individually or as part
of the overall marketing messaging for The Center and its fundraising operations can achieve this goal.
Developing relationships with local funeral homes including providing material about the Center and
how people can leave a memorial to a loved one can enhance the number of memorial contributions
you receive.
E:J
WAS oTA�N
➢ RECOMMENDATION #14: Market memorial gifts as part of your overall marketing plan and
your fundraising marketing plan. Reach out to local funeral homes to encourage them to ask
their clients if they would like to suggest that memorial gifts go to The Center
Corporate giving program: Corporations tend to make gifts to charity out of two different budgets:
marketing and philanthropy (often called corporate citizenship). Both tend to have a tie to the
company's overall business strategies although the former tends to have more requirements for public
recognition than the latter. Companies also look at your clientele to see if they would like to have access
to them for their business purposes which becomes another reason for them to support your
organization. That said, The Center has a clientele that most business would love to access: older,
wealthier, and more mobile than the average consumer. Because of that, I feel a lot of potential exists
for soliciting corporate gifts in support of The Center programs, activities, and events.
➢ RECOMMENDATION #15: Develop policies for accepting corporate gifts (e.g., from whom, for
what with what kinds of recognition)
➢ RECOMMENDATION #16: Develop a Corporate Solicitation Team, a volunteer committee led
by a staff member, to identify and solicit corporate contributions on behalf of The Center
Grants and foundation giving: Grants exist that could support The Center's programs, especially in the
areas of lifelong learning and senior wellness. Research to identify possible grant sources then meeting
with and writing applications to the most promising sources will allow you to secure additional funds
from these means. Because grant seeking can consume significant time, you might consider assigning
this task to an intern, volunteer or outsourcing it.
➢ RECOMMENDATION #17. Research possible grant sources for The Center using interns,
volunteers, or outsourcing; apply for those deemed most promising
Stewardship: Nationally, fewer than 50%of all donors to an organization make a gift in subsequent
years. Since it costs significantly less to retain current donors than recruit new donors, developing a
vibrant stewardship program becomes essential for the success of this fundraising plan in the short- and
long-term.
Most individuals who do not make a subsequent gift to an organization after their first cite not knowing
the impact their gift made on the organization as the main reason. Luckily, that becomes a fairly easy
problem to solve: keep donors informed of the impact of their gift. A comprehensive stewardship plan,
segmented by donor levels and focused on outcomes of donations, will help you achieve this goal. Some
suggested elements of the stewardship plan appear in the table below:
Donor level
48 hours
1 month
3 months
6 months
9 months
Less than $25
Formal
Call from
Standard
Newsletter
Standard
Resolicit
thank you
volunteer
Impact letter
Impact report
$26-$250
Formal
Call from
Standard
Newsletter
Standard
Resolicit
thank you
staff
Impact letter
Impact report
$251-$500
Formal
Call from
Personalized
Newsletter
Personalized
Resolicit
thank you
Linda
Impact letter
Impact report
More than
Formal
Call from
Personalized
Newsletter &
Personalized
Resolicit
$501
thank you
Linda
impact letter
personal note
impact report
Rl
FA5 oTA�N
You might also consider creating a new donor packet to thank new donors more specifically and provide
them with some important information about The Center, much like we talked about for new members.
Likewise, any new member material should include information about giving to instill a culture of
philanthropy from a member's first day at The Center.
Internal Supports for Fundraising Success
Marketing: Strong internal and external marketing of The Center and its amenities provides an
important foundation for building a successful fundraising program. The marketing plan developed by
Susan Shullaw and Robyn Hepker provides that solid foundation. Whenever possible, marketing
messages should focus on the impact that The Center has on the life of its members and the strength of
the Iowa City community. Messages that celebrate philanthropy and donors as well as the need for
donations interwoven into the overall marketing plan will further support the fundraising effort. Finally,
collateral material developed specifically for fundraising and should conform to the branding guide and
messages developed in the marketing plan. Some of the collateral material you might consider include:
• "Public" Case for Support (see below)
• Initial acknowledgment letters
• Quarterly gift impact letters, reports, or emails
• Donor solicitation packets
• Annual fund letters
Building a Case for Support: Your case for support outlines the reasons why someone might support The
Center. Two types exist. An internal case for support is a written document that has all of the
conceivable arguments that one might make to all of the audiences considering a gift to The Center.
Because of its comprehensive nature, this case for support remains an internal document that you use
to develop all (or most) fundraising messages and materials.
The "public" case for support creates a marketing piece from the internal case and outlines the
arguments that will resonate with a specific audience in a much more graphically -pleasing format. We
can create generic case statements to solicit smaller donations and leave behind at solicitation events as
well as customizable ones that we can use to solicit larger gifts.
➢ RECOMMENDATION #18: Develop an internal then public case forsupport
Gift Processing: Stewardship relies on the ability to quickly and accurately receive, record and
acknowledge gifts received from donors. We need to review current processes to assure that:
• Two people receive each gift: one should open and stamp any gifts while the second records
it to provide checks and balances
• Donors receive an official acknowledgement within 48 hours of receiving the gift (on
average)
• At anytime, management knows how much the Friends have raised in donated revenue
• We know how much each donor has contributed, when, and for what
Once we complete a review of the gift process, we can make recommendations for improvements
where needed to meet these best practices.
110]
WAS oTA�N
➢ RECOMMENDATION #19: Review gift process to assure compliance with best practices
Timeline for Implementation
This plan requires phased implementation to succeed, especially given the limited staff time to dedicate
to fundraising. I recommend the following timeline to implement over the next three years:
Timeline
Activity
Recommendation(s)
2015
Annual fundraising
9, 10, 11, 12
2015
Begin marketing plan
14
2016, Quarter 1
Build fundraising capacity
2, 3, 4
2016, Quarter 1
Review gift processing
19
2016, Quarter 1
Recruit volunteers
1
2016, Quarter 1
Develop case statements
18
2016, Quarter 2
Begin major gift program
5, 6, 7, 8
2016, Quarter 4
Recruit planned giving council
13
2017
Begin corporate solicitations
15,16
2018
Begin grant program
17
Budget for Implementation
Successful completion of this plan will require an investment of resources that should return to The
Center many times over in funds raised. As an initial budget, I recommend the following for 2016:
PT Fundraising staff (salary and benefits)
$30,000
Professional Development
10,000
Materials and printing
5,000
TOTAL
$45,000
Summary
The Center has a very strong and loyal constituent group which positions it well for fundraising success.
Realizing this potential, however, requires an investment of time, energy and resources to identify and
solicit those with the greatest potential to make a gift to The Center. Following these steps should allow
The Center to raise $200,000 and secure approximately 50% of its revenue within 5 years and provide
the foundation for continued fundraising success and growth.
III
WAS oTA�N
CenterA
IOWA CITY/JOHNSON COUNTY SENIOR CENTER
Memorandum
To: Senior Center Commission
From: Craig Buhman, Maintenance Worker III
Re: Facility Report
Date: 18 November, 2015
The Senior Center's project to upgrade the fire alarm system is complete. An addressable alarm
panel has been installed. We have replaced the smoke/heat detectors, pull stations, duct
sensors, horn/strobes and annunciator panel. Work on the project was completed in July with
inspections and certification awarded on the 29th of September.
The Center's chilled water system will be "winterized" on the 19th of November. The date
chosen to undertake this work is fusion of contractor availability and seasonal conditions. A
solution of propylene glycol will be added to the cooling loop to prevent freezing. The
movement of solution through the loop in conjunction with the factory installed heater
provides freeze protection for the chiller.
The Center's Aerco boilers are evolving toward "service issue" status. The Senior Center has
two Aerco boilers. The two boiler system, initially fired on the 25th of November, 2008, provides
safety through redundancy and offers increased operational efficiency. Unfortunately the single
most costly component of the boiler system, the heat exchanger, has now failed on both
boilers. A heat exchanger failed and was replaced in February of 2012. Preventative
maintenance work performed in early November of this year discovered a leaking heat
exchanger on the second boiler. The first failed heat exchanger was replaced under a prorated
warranty. Labor costs, shipping and materials are not covered under the warranty. The most
recent failure is, once again, a prorated warranty item. At this time we have an operational
heating system, albeit in need of repairs, and Senior Center staff is investigating options.
A personal and heartfelt thanks to all Senior Center staff who managed gracefully provide
coverage during the MWIII's absence.
Craig Buhman, Maintenance Worker III
319-356-5227 • craig-buhman@iowa-city.org
28 South Linn Street, Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Center
IOWA CITY/JOHNSON COUNTY SENIOR CENTER
Memorandum
To: Senior Center Commission
From: Emily Light, Community Outreach Specialist
Date: November 18, 2015
SHIIP Counseling/Medicare Open Enrollment Period
The Senior Health Insurance Information Program (SHIIP) counselors have done amazing work
this fall to serve a record number of clients during the Medicare Open Enrollment Period
(October 15 — December 7, 2015). Offering roughly 335 appointments during this year's CEP,
we have increased our capacity by approximately 37% since last year (244 appointments
provided in same period in 2014), and demand continues to grow.
203 individuals attended ten Welcome to Medicare seminars offered by SHIIP in 2015. SHIIP
counselors met with 358 clients between January 1, 2015 and October 14, 2015, and they will
offer another 24 appointments in December after Open Enrollment has concluded.
Family Folk Machine and "Brown Gold" Music Video
The Senior Center's intergenerational folk choir, the Family Folk Machine, had a lively concert at
the Senior Center on Sunday, November 15. Fifty singers, five instrumentalists, and more than
one hundred audience members shared a fun afternoon of folk songs about traveling. The FFM
concert will be repeated at the Old Capitol Senate Chambers on the UI campus on Sunday,
November 22, for anyone who missed the first opportunity to experience the Machine.
On September 26, 2015, the Family Folk Machine and The Center premiered our first
professionally produced music video for the song, "Brown Gold," about the wonders of
composting. We had a full house for our music video release party, which started with a
screening of "Brown Gold" in the Senior Center Assembly Room, followed by a kazoo parade to
Chauncey Swan park where we played games (pin the banana peel on the compost bin and
summer squash bowling), had a sing -along, and learned about composting from Jennifer Jordar
of the Iowa City Landfill and Recycling Center and Scott Koepke from New Pi's SoilMates.
Production of the music video was made possible by a grant from the Community Foundation
of Johnson County. "Brown Gold" now has more than 1182 views on The Center's YouTube
channel and can be viewed at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvsbkFJODbO.
EMILY LIGHT, COMMUNITY OUTREACH SPECIALIST
3 1 9-356-5224 0 EMILY-LIGHT@?IOWA-CITY.ORG 0 28 S LINN ST, IOWA CITY, IA 52240
Honoring Your Wishes
Emily Light was given the Dianne Day Community Champion Award during the Honoring Your
Wishes educational conference, "Sharing Our Experiences," at University of Iowa Hospitals and
Clinics on October 8, 2015. At the same conference, she unveiled three short videos produced
by the Senior Center to educate community members on the importance of advance health
care planning. The videos can be viewed on the Senior Center's YouTube channel and at
www.honoringvourwishes.org.
The Senior Center's advance care planning facilitators have been busy this fall leading ACP
discussions with students from the School of Social Work's Death and Dying class. Our
volunteers have met with more than 40 University of Iowa students since the beginning of
October to guide them through the process of discussing and documenting their wishes for
medical treatment in the event that they were not able to express their wishes or make
decisions about their care. The Senior Center offers free advance care planning services to all
community members and encourages adults of all ages to plan for future health care decisions.
During spring of 2016, we will try a new approach to leading advance health care planning
discussions by offering group workshops for 4-16 people at a time. We hope to reach a greater
number of people with practical tips for starting conversations about health care preferences
and navigating the Honoring Your Wishes health care directive document, while drawing upon
stories from participants to create a deeper understanding of advance care planning concepts.
2015 Volunteer Recognition and Awards
The Senior Center's volunteer recognition and awards dinner was held on October 22, 2015.
Thank you to the Commission members who were able to attend and volunteer at the event.
We served a delicious meal of hearty fall soups and fresh salad from Her Soup Kitchen, along
with delightful baked breads and desserts from ReginaBread. We gave Senior Center volunteers
a gift of five notecards featuring original artwork by Senior Center art instructor Jim Ochs, along
with a strip of ten Forever stamps. Several UI students volunteered at the event to help with
set-up, serving, and clean-up, including a group of women from the UI gymnastics team
(arranged by our former practicum student, Johanny Sotillo). The event was well -received, and
volunteers were shown support from City leadership with attendance by City Manager Tom
Markus and City Council member Jim Throgmorton.
The following 2015 Outstanding Volunteer Awards were presented at this event:
- Senior Center Leadership: Kathy Mitchell
- Senior Center Instructor: Jim Curry
- Senior Center Advocate: Ed Rolenc
- Service to Seniors: Gary Schwartz
- Senior Center Volunteer Group: SHIIP Counselors: Erin Droll, Elsie Foerstner, Jo Hensch,
John Kane, Del Long, Bob Lower, Harry Ruth, and Gary Schwartz
EMILY LIGHT, COMMUNITY OUTREACH SPECIALIST
319-356-5224 • EMILY-LIGHT@?IOWA-CITY.ORG
28 SOUTH LINN STREET, IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240
'P,r-"P- -Qpvx $..". Q.
Memorandum
To: Senior Center Commission
From: Michelle Buhman, Program Specialist
Re: Program Report
Date: November 17, 2015
Program Committee Update
The Program Committee has been busy, they reviewed their By -Laws and made changes to article 1,
section 1, changed the name from "organization" to "Committee", deleted article 2 section 4, added a
vice -chair under article 4, section 1 and change the word appointed to elected in that same sentence.
(Attached)
In addition, the Program Committee reviewed their mission and felt they were not doing enough in the
way of program evaluations. An annual plan for increasing the number of evaluations was created and
adopted. Class evaluations have been conducted in four classes and results will be reviewed at the
December meeting. They will review their goals and set new ones for 2016-2020 once the overall goals
for The Center have been established.
The committee is also in the process of creating an Instructor Guide that will help new and current
volunteers and independent contractors understand Senior Center policies, procedures, expectations and
the culture. Anne Frankel, Lorraine Dorfman, and Ed Rolenc agreed to form a subcommittee to work with
me to develop the manual. The sub -committee has a goal to have a draft prepared by the end of January
2016.
Program Report
The "December" program guide is complete and available to the public. This document serves as a
transitional piece as work is being done to move from a three months program guide schedule to a four
month guide. The "Winter/Spring" program schedule has been sent to Benson and Hepker Design and
will be available to the public in December. The Program Guide will cover the months of January — April
and have a completely new design. In addition to the new layout, I am working with staff to create a
variety of new programs throughout the year to celebrate the Senior Center's 35t' Anniversary. An Open
House has been scheduled for January 7, 2016 from 8:30-10 AM to kick-off the Anniversary year. Please
mark your calendars now and plan to attend, and bring a friend.
Promoting Optimal Aging for Johnson County
28 South Linn Street, Iowa City, Iowa 52240 • 319-356-5220• www.icgov.org/senior
Appendix 2.7.4 — 1 b
BY-LAWS FOR THE CENTER PROGRAM COMMITTEE
Approved August 10, 2010
Revised September 2010
Revised October 2, 2015
ARTICLE 1- NAME, PURPOSE
Section 1: The name of the committee is the Center Program Committee.
Section 2: The Center Program Committee consists of volunteers who are
interested in enhancing senior center programs. The purpose of the
committee is to implement the mission of the Center by assisting in
program planning and evaluation.
ARTICLE 2 - MEMBERSHIP
Section 1: The committee shall include a maximum of twelve (12)
community members.
Section 2: The membership term shall be two years. A member may serve as
many terms as desired.
Section 3: Terms of membership will run from July 1 of one year through
June 30 of the following year.
ARTICLE 3- MEETINGS
Section 1: The Center Program Committee shall meet monthly. Additional
meetings may be scheduled as needed.
Section 2: The Committee Chair or designee will report to the Senior Center
Steering Council on a monthly basis. Additional presentations
may be made if desired by the members of the committee.
Section 3: All regularly scheduled meeting dates shall be published in the
Program Guide.
The agenda and meeting notice shall be sent out to all Committee
members a minimum of five calendar days prior to the scheduled
meeting.
Notice of the meeting and the agenda shall be distributed and
posted in all areas necessary to comply with open meetings laws.
Section 4: At each scheduled meeting a quorum shall consist of a simple
majority of committee members.
Q:\Kris[in's Commission Folder\Electronic Commission Packe[s\FY16\11-19-
15\Michelle2Program committebylawsmvised2015. doc
Appendix 2.7.4 — 1 b
ARTICLE 4-OFFICERS
Section 1: A chair, vice -chair and secretary will serve for one year and will be
elected by among the returning members by a majority vote of the
committee.
Section 2: The Chairperson will represent the Program Committee and serve
as a member of the Senior Center Steering Council.
Section 3: At least two weeks prior to the scheduled meeting the Chairperson
will gather information from the other members of the committee
and work with the staff support person to develop an agenda for
the upcoming meeting.
Section 4: The committee Secretary will compile the minutes to be distributed
with the Agenda a minimum of five days prior to the meeting.
ARTICLE 5-AMENDMENTS
Section 1: The By-laws of the Center Program Committee may be amended
by a simple majority vote at a meeting attended by quorum of
members.
Section 2: Proposed amendments shall be circulated and discussed at the
meeting prior to the meeting at which the amendment is voted
upon.
Q:\Kris[in's Commission Folder\Electronic Commission Packe[s\FY16\11-19- 2
15\Michelle2Program committebylawsmvised2015. doc
Appendix 2.7.4 — 1 b
BY-LAWS FOR THE CENTER PROGRAM COMMITTEE
Approved August 10, 2010
Revised September 2010
ARTICLE 1- NAME, PURPOSE
Section 1: The name of the organization is the Center Program Committee.
Section 2: The Center Program Committee consists of volunteers who are
interested in enhancing senior center programs. The purpose of the
committee is to implement the mission of the Center by assisting in
program planning and evaluation.
ARTICLE 2 - MEMBERSHIP
Section 1: The committee shall include a maximum of twelve (12)
community members.
Section 2: The membership term shall be two years. A member may serve as
many terms as desired.
Section 3: Terms of membership will run from July 1 of one year through
June 30 of the following year.
Section 4: Potential members for the following term shall be selected no later
than June 1 of each calendar year. At least one and not more than
four of these potential members must currently be serving on the
Committee, in order to maintain continuity.
Notices shall be posted in Center publications as an aid to the
Committee in identifying persons to serve a term. These shall
include individual requests for the names of interested parties
posted around the Center, and notice published in the Quarterly
Program Guide. Additionally, the Staff Advisor and committee
members may be asked to suggest the names of potential members.
ARTICLE 3- MEETINGS
Section 1: The Center Program Committee shall meet monthly. Additional
meetings may be scheduled as needed.
Section 2: The Committee Chair or designee will report to the Senior Center
Steering Council on a monthly basis. Additional presentations
may be made if desired by the members of the committee.
Section 3: All regularly scheduled meeting dates shall be published in the
Program Guide.
Q:\Kris[in's Commission Folder\Electronic Commission Packe[s\FY16\11-19-15\michelle3Programcommitteebylaws2010
2.7.4-1b.doc
Appendix 2.7.4 — 1 b
The agenda and meeting notice shall be sent out to all Committee
members a minimum of five calendar days prior to the scheduled
meeting.
Notice of the meeting and the agenda shall be distributed and
posted in all areas necessary to comply with open meetings laws.
Section 4: At each scheduled meeting a quorum shall consist of a simple
majority of committee members.
ARTICLE 4-OFFICERS
Section 1: A chair and secretary will serve for one year and will be appointed
from among the returning members by a majority vote of the
committee.
Section 2: The Chairperson will represent the Program Committee and serve
as a member of the Senior Center Steering Council.
Section 3: At least two weeks prior to the scheduled meeting the Chairperson
will gather information from the other members of the committee
and work with the staff support person to develop an agenda for
the upcoming meeting.
Section 4: The committee Secretary will compile the minutes to be distributed
with the Agenda a minimum of five days prior to the meeting.
ARTICLE 5-AMENDMENTS
Section 1: The By-laws of the Center Program Committee may be amended
by a simple majority vote at a meeting attended by quorum of
members.
Section 2: Proposed amendments shall be circulated and discussed at the
meeting prior to the meeting at which the amendment is voted
upon.
Q:\Kris[in's Commission Folder\Electronic Commission Packe[s\FY16\11-19-15\michelle3Programcommitteebylaws2010 - 2
2.7.4-1b.doc
11/18/2015 07:45 (CITY OF IOWA CITY IP 1
KKromray YEAR TO DATE REPORT glytdbud
FOR 2016 99
ORIGINAL
APPROP
TRANFRS/
ADJSTMTS
REVISED
BUDGET
YTD EXPENDED
JOURNAL DETAIL
HNC/REQ
2016 1 TO
AVAILABLE
BUDGET
2016
PCT
USED
12
10570100 Senior Center Administrations
336110 Johnson County
-59,224
0
-59,224
-29,612.00
.00
-29,612.00
50.0%
346600 Membership Fees
-57,354
0
-57,354
-18,985.00
.00
-38,369.00
33.1%
356200 Permit Parking
-20,390
0
-20,390
-13,300.00
.00
-7,090.00
65.2%
362100 Contrib & Donations
-46,911
0
-46,911
-5,098.00
.00
-41,813.00
10.9%
363910 Misc Sale of Merchandise
-6,091
0
-6,091
-879.32
.00
-5,211.68
14.4%
369100 Reimb of Expenses
-2,500
0
-2,500
-1,503.00
.00
-997.00
60.1%
369900 Miscellaneous Other Income
0
0
0
-11.35
.00
11.35
100.0%
382200 Building/Room Rental
-532
0
-532
-120.00
.00
-412.00
22.6%
382400 Locker Rentals
-1,603
0
-1,603
-544.00
.00
-1,059.00
33.9%
384200 Vending Machine Commission
-264
0
-264
-84.17
.00
-179.83
31.9%
TOTAL Senior Center Administrations
-194,869
0
-194,869
-70,136.84
.00
-124,732.16
36.0%
10570220 Senior Ctr Classes
346400 Lessons
-4,700
0
-4,700
-675.00
.00
-4,025.00
14.4%
348900 Charges for Services
-11,171
0
-11,171
-7,847.40
.00
-3,323.60
70.2%
TOTAL Senior Ctr Classes
-15,871
0
-15,871
-8,522.40
.00
-7,348.60
53.7%
10570250 Senior Center Chorus
346500 Entry Fees
-4,000
0
-4,000
-1,755.00
.00
-2,245.00
43.9%
369100 Reimb of Expenses
-400
0
-400
-240.00
.00
-160.00
60.0%
TOTAL Senior Center Chorus
-4,400
0
-4,400
-1,995.00
.00
-2,405.00
45.3%
10570260 Senior Center Special Events
346700 Special Events
-3,000
0
-3,000
-1,131.50
.00
-1,868.50
37.7%
369100 Reimb of Expenses
-6,000
0
-6,000
.00
.00
-6,000.00
.0%
TOTAL Senior Center Special Events
-9,000
0
-9,000
-1,131.50
.00
-7,868.50
12.6%
10570270 Senior Center Television
363910 Misc Sale of Merchandise -950 0 -950-608.00 .00-342.00 64.Oo
11/18/2015 07:45 (CITY OF IOWA CITY IP 2
KKromray YEAR TO DATE REPORT glytdbud
FOR 2016 99
JOURNAL DETAIL
2016 1 TO
2016 12
ORIGINAL
TRANFRS/
REVISED
AVAILABLE
PCT
10570270 Senior Center Television
APPROP
ADJSTMTS
BUDGET
YTD EXPENDED
HNC/REQ
BUDGET
USED
TOTAL Senior Center Television
-950
0
-950
-608.00
.00
-342.00
64.0%
GRAND TOTAL
-225,090
0
-225,090
-82,393.74
.00
-142,696.26
36.6%
** END OF REPORT - Generated by Kristin Kromray **
Members as of 11-18-15 = 1547
ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS FOR THE USE OF ALCOHOL
at the Terry Trueblood Recreation Area Lodge and the Ned Ashton House.
The following Administrative Rules regarding the use of alcohol are adopted pursuant to Iowa City Code
4-5-3, and approved by the Iowa City Parks and Recreation Director and the City Manager of Iowa City.
The Iowa City Parks and Recreation Director, or designee, is authorized to issue written permission to a
Permittee, via an addendum attached to an approved Facility Rental Permit, for the use of alcohol in the
Terry Trueblood Recreation Area Lodge and the Ned Ashton House pursuant to these administrative
rules. The following rules apply:
1. The City will have a designee present for the duration of the event.
2. A damage deposit shall be required for each event, as set by the City, or designee. The rental permit
holder (Permittee) shall be personally responsible for any and all damages caused by the Permittee
or any guests, including those damages not covered by the damage deposit.
3. Permittee shall obtain a general liability insurance policy in the amount of $1 million per occurrence
covering personal injury, bodily injury, and property damage. No deletion or modification to Host
Liquor Liability is allowed. An umbrella or excess liability policy in these amounts may be sufficient
to meet this requirement. The City of Iowa City must be included as an Additional Insured on the
policy, unless otherwise agreed upon by the Director of Parks and Recreation. The City requires that
the insurance carrier be A rated or better by A.M. Best. All policies shall be written on a per
occurrence basis, not a claims -made basis, and in form and amounts and with companies
satisfactory to the City of Iowa City. Such policy shall remain in full force and effect for the duration
of the event. Where a caterer is providing the alcohol, proof of the caterer's insurance meeting
these requirements is sufficient. Proof of insurance is due with the rental deposit.
4. The Permittee must be 21 years of age or older, and provide proof thereof via a government -issued
photo I.D. upon request.
5. No person under the legal drinking age may possess or consume alcoholic beverages.
6. All alcoholic beverages must be consumed in the building or within the outdoor patio area. No
possession or consumption of alcohol is allowed anywhere else on City property.
7. The City or its designee reserves the right to cut off any person from further possession or
consumption of alcohol, should their behavior, in the sole opinion of the City or designee, warrant it.
Failure of the Permitee or its guests to act responsibly and maintain order, as determined by the City
or its designee, may result in removal of the person(s) from the premises, intervention by law
enforcement, and/or termination of the event.
8. No liquor shall be permitted. Permittees may bring their own wine or beer only if a caterer is not
providing the alcohol.
9. If a caterer is providing the alcohol, any and all wine and beer possessed or consumed must be
provided by the caterer.
10. If a caterer is providing the alcohol, the Permittee shall provide evidence of the caterer's liquor
license to the City.
11. Only hosted wine and beer is permitted. No sales, cup sales, "suggested" or "free-will" donations,
and/or tickets are allowed. If there is evidence that alcohol has been sold to individuals, other than
the sale from the caterer to the Renter, the event will be terminated immediately, and law
enforcement will be notified.
12. Permittee agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City against any and all claims related
in any way whatsoever to the Permittee or any of Permittee's guests consuming alcoholic
beverages, or any behavior that arguably resulted from the Permittee or guest consuming alcoholic
beverages.
13. The Parks and Recreation Director or designee may place additional reasonable conditions on the
use of alcohol in the Terry Trueblood Recreation Area Lodge or the Ned Ashton House, which
conditions shall be attached to the rental permit.
I HAVE CAREFULLY READ AND UNDERSTAND THIS DOCUMENT, AND AGREE TO ALL TERMS
CONTAINED HEREIN. I AM SIGNING THIS FREELY AND WITHOUT RESERVATION OR CONDITION.
Permittee Printed Name Permittee Signature/Date"
' Approved by City Manager 4117114