![]() |
|||||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
Research Results: Nonprofit Trust and Personal Affailiation Surveys We have conducted two surveys of Indiana residents. Most recently we have examined the extent to which they trust nonprofits more or less than other key institutions (October 2008). Several years ago we examined their personal affiliation with nonprofits (May 2001). Both surveys were managed by the Center for Survey Research at Indiana University Nonprofit Trust Survey | Personal Affiliation Survey Click here to see the Press Release for this study. The full report is available here: Are Nonprofits Trustworthy? Conducted in October 2008, the Nonprofit Trust Survey asked 536 Indiana residents whether they trust nonprofits and charities in their communities to do what is right just about all the time, most of the time, some of the time, or hardly ever. We asked the same question about state government in Indianapolis, local government, the federal government and businesses and corporations in their community. We also asked respondents about their political orientations and about a broad range of socio-demographic characteristics. Key Findings Three findings stand out from our analysis
Indiana residents interact with nonprofits daily, often times without knowing it. The Personal Affiliation Survey, conducted in May 2001, is an effort to catalogue the types of nonprofits Indiana residents interact with and the nature of this interaction. Five hundred and twenty-six respondents were asked in a random telephone poll about four types of involvement with nonprofits during the past 12 months: participation in religious services; attending events or activities at other types of nonprofits; volunteering; or working for nonprofits.The survey also allowed us to evaluate the utility this alternative approach to sampling Indiana nonprofits, compared to drawing a sample from a comprehensive nonprofit database. Our key findings show that these four types of nonprofit involvement vary some by the socio-economic status, demographic characteristics, and community attachment of respondents. Updated: March 12, 2009 |
||||||
![]() |
|||||||