Survey of SIFP 2011 Attendees with 85 responses collected between October 8th and 20th.
PAGE: 1
1. I attended the SIFP event on Monday night Oct. 3 as a: |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| answered question | 85 | ||
| Response Percent |
Response Count |
||
| Social Innovator |
 |
23.5% | 20 |
| Donor |
|
8.2% | 7 |
| Investor |
|
12.9% | 11 |
| Connector |
|
28.2% | 24 |
| Student |
|
4.7% | 4 |
| SIFP Volunteer |
|
16.5% | 14 |
| SVP Partner |
|
20.0% | 17 |
| ZINO Society member |
|
1.2% | 1 |
| SVP or ZINO staff member |
|
1.2% | 1 |
| Friend/significant-other of one of the aforementioned |
|
8.2% | 7 |
| Other (please specify) |
|
3.5% | 3 |
2. My age range |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| answered question | 85 | ||
| Response Percent |
Response Count |
||
| Under 20 | 0.0% | 0 | |
| 21-25 |
|
3.5% | 3 |
| 26-30 |
|
8.2% | 7 |
| 31-40 |
|
16.5% | 14 |
| 41-50 |
|
24.7% | 21 |
| 51-60 |
|
31.8% | 27 |
| 60+ |
|
15.3% | 13 |
3. I learned about SIFP via (check all that apply): |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| answered question | 82 | ||
| Response Percent |
Response Count |
||
| Social Venture Partners |
|
57.3% | 47 |
| ZINO Society |
|
8.5% | 7 |
| Contact from SIFP contestant |
|
6.1% | 5 |
| United Way |
|
1.2% | 1 |
| City Club | 0.0% | 0 | |
| Washington Women's Foundation |
|
3.7% | 3 |
| University of Washington |
|
7.3% | 6 |
| Seattle University |
|
2.4% | 2 |
| Microsoft Alumni Foundation |
|
6.1% | 5 |
| Local angel group(s) |
|
3.7% | 3 |
| Email from a friend |
|
32.9% | 27 |
| National Public Radio |
|
2.4% | 2 |
|
|
9.8% | 8 | |
|
|
2.4% | 2 | |
|
|
1.2% | 1 | |
4. Overall, my experience at the SIFP event was: |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| answered question | 84 | ||
| Response Percent |
Response Count |
||
| Far below expectations | 0.0% | 0 | |
| Below expectations |
|
8.3% | 7 |
| Met expectations |
|
27.4% | 23 |
| Above expectations |
|
44.0% | 37 |
| Far above expectations |
|
20.2% | 17 |
5. Please comment on what part(s) of the SIFP event had the highest impact/value for you: |
||
|---|---|---|
| answered question | 68 | |
| Response Count |
||
| 68 | ||
6. For next year's SIFP event, on October 18 2012, I am: |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| answered question | 84 | ||
| Response Percent |
Response Count |
||
| Highly unlikely to attend |
|
1.2% | 1 |
| Unlikely to attend |
|
6.0% | 5 |
| Undecided |
|
10.7% | 9 |
| Likely to attend |
|
48.8% | 41 |
| Highly likely to attend |
|
33.3% | 28 |
7. I would recommend the following to attend SIFP 2012: |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| answered question | 82 | ||
| Response Percent |
Response Count |
||
| Nobody |
|
1.2% | 1 |
| Only those deeply involved with social innovation |
|
4.9% | 4 |
| Those showing an interest in social innovation |
|
35.4% | 29 |
| Most anyone involved in community service |
|
39.0% | 32 |
| Everyone |
|
19.5% | 16 |
8. (check all that apply) As a result of attending the SIFP event, I: |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| answered question | 84 | ||
| Response Percent |
Response Count |
||
| am inspired to be more active in supporting social impact organizations in my community; |
|
52.4% | 44 |
| met other attendees with whom I share interests; |
|
51.2% | 43 |
| have donated (or am likely to donate) to one of the semifinalists or finalist presenters; |
|
21.4% | 18 |
| will make (or have made) connections to help one of the organizations I interacted with; |
|
54.8% | 46 |
| am more interested in (for-profit) social impact investing; |
|
26.2% | 22 |
| don't relate to any of the above. |
|
9.5% | 8 |
9. In the future, |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| answered question | 81 | ||
| Response Percent |
Response Count |
||
| I would like to learn more about Social Venture Partners, |
|
23.5% | 19 |
| I am interested in learning about ZINO Society, |
|
23.5% | 19 |
| I know enough about both groups for now, thanks. |
|
66.7% | 54 |
PAGE: 2
10. ... |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| answered question | 78 | ||
| Response Percent |
Response Count |
||
| Please capture my contact info for future communications and put me in a drawing for a FREE limited-edition SIFP T-shirt |
|
29.5% | 23 |
| I'll enter my email for future communications but don't care about T-shirts |
|
28.2% | 22 |
| T-shirts are not important to me and I prefer to be anonymous |
|
42.3% | 33 |
PAGE: 3
11. For the T-shirt drawing and other communications, here's my info: |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| answered question | 42 | ||
| Response Percent |
Response Count |
||
| First name |
|
100.0% | 42 |
| Last name |
|
100.0% | 42 |
|
|
100.0% | 42 | |
12. As Social Venture Partners innovates with the SIFP program, getting feedback from the community is vital. Would you be willing to answer another more detailed survey in a month or two as we develop our 2012 program? |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| answered question | 50 | ||
| Response Percent |
Response Count |
||
| Sure, happy to help |
|
78.0% | 39 |
| Maybe, depends on how busy I am |
|
18.0% | 9 |
| Not at this time, check back around next year's event |
|
4.0% | 2 |
13. Participants in the SIFP program highly value help they've already received from pitch coaches, business mentors, and other volunteers. As a nearly-all-volunteer program, we depend on help from the community. Please check any of these areas are of interest to you for our 2012 program, on a volunteer basis: |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| answered question | 30 | ||
| Response Percent |
Response Count |
||
| Helping SVP deliver the SIFP 2012 program |
|
46.7% | 14 |
| Volunteering with SIFP program contestants |
|
33.3% | 10 |
| Pitch coaching for contestants |
|
53.3% | 16 |
| Business mentoring for contestants |
|
36.7% | 11 |
| Assisting contestants in fundraising |
|
6.7% | 2 |
| Marketing / social media for contestants |
|
20.0% | 6 |
PAGE: 4
14. We know we have a few things to improve next year, such as giving some drinks and snacks on arrival, having a better registration process, and having more room in the Poster-Table reception. Presuming we fix those things, please rate the following aspects of the SIFP event on Oct 3, with 1 being most unfavorable, and 5 being most favorable: |
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| answered question | 82 | |||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Response Count |
|
| Time of day (4:30-8:30pm) | 1.2% (1) | 3.7% (3) | 11.0% (9) | 28.0% (23) | 56.1% (46) | 82 |
| Location (Seattle Center) | 1.3% (1) | 5.0% (4) | 13.8% (11) | 32.5% (26) | 47.5% (38) | 80 |
| Our selected venue (Fisher Pavilion) | 1.2% (1) | 4.9% (4) | 21.0% (17) | 32.1% (26) | 40.7% (33) | 81 |
| Registration / entry process | 0.0% (0) | 6.3% (5) | 23.8% (19) | 45.0% (36) | 25.0% (20) | 80 |
| Quality of food and drink | 2.6% (2) | 7.7% (6) | 11.5% (9) | 35.9% (28) | 42.3% (33) | 78 |
| General seating arrangements | 0.0% (0) | 8.8% (7) | 27.5% (22) | 47.5% (38) | 16.3% (13) | 80 |
| Reserved rows / cocktail tables (if applicable) | 1.7% (1) | 13.3% (8) | 40.0% (24) | 30.0% (18) | 15.0% (9) | 60 |
| Sound and lighting | 1.2% (1) | 3.7% (3) | 22.2% (18) | 49.4% (40) | 23.5% (19) | 81 |
| Large-screen presentation projection | 1.2% (1) | 1.2% (1) | 14.8% (12) | 51.9% (42) | 30.9% (25) | 81 |
| Live music | 4.0% (3) | 10.7% (8) | 36.0% (27) | 30.7% (23) | 18.7% (14) | 75 |
| Printed program materials | 4.9% (4) | 4.9% (4) | 25.6% (21) | 39.0% (32) | 25.6% (21) | 82 |
15. Please rate the aggregate quality of fast pitches from each of the four tracks: |
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| answered question | 82 | |||||
| Far below expectations | Below expectations | Met expectations | Above expectations | Far above expectations | Response Count |
|
| High School | 0.0% (0) | 2.5% (2) | 18.5% (15) | 46.9% (38) | 32.1% (26) | 81 |
| University | 0.0% (0) | 1.3% (1) | 42.5% (34) | 43.8% (35) | 12.5% (10) | 80 |
| For-Profit | 9.8% (8) | 23.2% (19) | 45.1% (37) | 18.3% (15) | 3.7% (3) | 82 |
| Nonprofit | 0.0% (0) | 6.1% (5) | 25.6% (21) | 57.3% (47) | 11.0% (9) | 82 |
16. As Paul S. explained in his introduction, SIFP ran, in partnership with Ashoka, four separate competitions at the same time. There was independent judging along the way to select the best candidates for high school, university, nonprofit and for-profit tracks. On Monday night, the audience was presented with all of the finalists in one program, with two awards that could go to anyone. We want to know if you liked this model and the balance we struck between the different tracks. For next year's program, would you like to see in each track: |
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| answered question | 81 | ||||
| No participation | Fewer pitches | About the same | More pitches | Response Count |
|
| High School | 5.0% (4) | 6.3% (5) | 71.3% (57) | 17.5% (14) | 80 |
| University | 2.5% (2) | 6.3% (5) | 65.0% (52) | 26.3% (21) | 80 |
| Nonprofit | 1.2% (1) | 17.3% (14) | 66.7% (54) | 14.8% (12) | 81 |
| For-profit | 5.0% (4) | 12.5% (10) | 55.0% (44) | 27.5% (22) | 80 |
17. We now know we needed to explain the multi-track competition and judging process better to the audience. Are there other things we should do differently in this area? |
||
|---|---|---|
| answered question | 29 | |
| Response Count |
||
| 29 | ||
18. The SIFP program was expensive to deliver, as it included providing $100,000 in grants, $75,000 in investments, substantial coaching and mentoring for innovators, multiple rounds of judging, and a large event. Donations from SIFP attendees via ticket sales totaled about $40,000; the balance of required funds came from donors, investors, and corporate sponsors. Please indicate your disagreement or agreement with the following statements, where 1 = strongly disagree, and 5 = strongly agree. |
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| answered question | 81 | |||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Response Count |
|
| Total grants awarded to high school and university participants ($10k total to 4 groups) were reasonable | 2.5% (2) | 5.0% (4) | 15.0% (12) | 46.3% (37) | 31.3% (25) | 80 |
| Audience Choice awards of $5k + $5k were appropriate | 2.5% (2) | 11.1% (9) | 19.8% (16) | 42.0% (34) | 24.7% (20) | 81 |
| The top nonprofit award of $30k was too much money | 30.9% (25) | 39.5% (32) | 12.3% (10) | 12.3% (10) | 4.9% (4) | 81 |
| Every finalist should have received an award of some amount | 33.3% (27) | 25.9% (21) | 16.0% (13) | 14.8% (12) | 9.9% (8) | 81 |
| It would be OK if many contestants receive nothing | 11.3% (9) | 22.5% (18) | 23.8% (19) | 23.8% (19) | 18.8% (15) | 80 |
| The best nonprofit should receive a higher award | 6.3% (5) | 28.8% (23) | 30.0% (24) | 21.3% (17) | 13.8% (11) | 80 |
| Ticket prices for students and social innovators ($25/35) were reasonable | 0.0% (0) | 10.1% (8) | 22.8% (18) | 35.4% (28) | 31.6% (25) | 79 |
| It would be better to give smaller awards and have lower ticket prices | 37.0% (30) | 39.5% (32) | 13.6% (11) | 9.9% (8) | 0.0% (0) | 81 |
| Next year, let people donate what they can to attend, and adjust grant awards [down] accordingly | 37.0% (30) | 38.3% (31) | 19.8% (16) | 4.9% (4) | 0.0% (0) | 81 |
19. Seattle SIFP offered participation to social innovators from many different stages of development and in broad domains of organizational operation and impact. Please indicate your agreement or disagreement with the following, where 1 = strongly disagree, 3 = neither disagree nor agree, and 5 = strongly agree |
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| answered question | 81 | |||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Response Count |
|
| SIFP's program should be as broad, or broader, in addressing domains of impact | 3.9% (3) | 9.1% (7) | 36.4% (28) | 31.2% (24) | 19.5% (15) | 77 |
| Seeing both high school ideas and established nonprofits is confusing | 38.3% (31) | 30.9% (25) | 13.6% (11) | 12.3% (10) | 4.9% (4) | 81 |
| I like seeing for-profit ventures as well as nonprofits as long as the quality bar is high for both | 4.9% (4) | 6.2% (5) | 6.2% (5) | 35.8% (29) | 46.9% (38) | 81 |
| Focusing on fewer domains would be better (only education and environment, for example) | 51.3% (41) | 26.3% (21) | 10.0% (8) | 8.8% (7) | 3.8% (3) | 80 |
| Running SIFP twice a year, with each event focusing on different different domains or stages of development would be better | 28.4% (23) | 21.0% (17) | 27.2% (22) | 17.3% (14) | 6.2% (5) | 81 |
20. Please add any other thoughts you have about the breath and types of contestants we put in front of the audience and/or have in the Poster-Table reception |
||
|---|---|---|
| answered question | 32 | |
