Engaging Jewish Communities Through the Web

8/8/2019 Engaging Jewish Communities Through the Web

1/15

Engaging Jewish Communities through the

Web: Survey Study

August 27, 2010

Presented to:

Jvillage NetworkBurlington, Vermont

www.jvillagenetwork.com

Presented by:

Joy A. Livingston, Ph.D.Flint Springs Associates

Hinesburg, Vermontwww.flintspringsassociates.com
http://www.jvillagenetwork.com/http://www.flintspringsassociates.com/http://www.flintspringsassociates.com/http://www.jvillagenetwork.com/


2/15

1

Introduction

The Internet brings both exciting opportunities and new challenges to modern synagogues.

Jvillage was established to help Jewish organizations, in particular synagogues, enhance

belonging and build community through the internet. Jvillage provides user-friendly custom

Web sites as well as interactive tools and content.

In order to better understand synagogues current use of the internet to engage members, as well

as emerging needs for making the most of this tool, Jvillage commissioned Flint Springs

Associates (FSA) to study synagogues internet use. FSA began with an interview study of 22

synagogues throughout the United States. Based on results of that study, FSA constructed a

survey to learn from a broader sample of synagogues.

Using the Jvillage national synagogue database, FSA distributed the survey via email. The

survey was sent to 2500 email addresses using the following request:

Dear Friend:

Hello, my name is Joy Livingston and I am a research consultant with Flint Springs Associates(FSA). As a member of our local synagogue, I know that the web can be an important tool forconnecting with our community. Indeed, I am conducting a survey study to learn more about howsynagogues across the country use the web to engage and grow their membership.

The study is sponsored by Jvillage Network. When I have completed the study and reportedfindings, Jvillage Network will publish results on their website (www.jvillagenetwork.com) to helpsynagogues understand the range of possibilities and how others are using the web.

For each survey completed, $1.00 will be donated to Mazon: A Jewish Response to Hunger.

Thank you for taking a few minutes to complete the survey. Here is a link to the survey:http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=WrqR2fZGFFQR8UTU_2fcRhIA_3d_3dThe surveywill be open for responses until Tuesday, August 3.

This link is uniquely tied to this survey and your email address. Please do not forward thismessage. Also, please be assured that this link will not be used for marketing purposes.

Please feel free to be in touch with me if you have any questions about the study.

Best wishes,

Joy Livingston, PhD
http://c/Users/Spencer/Documents/biz/JVillage/research/www.jvillagenetwork.comhttp://c/Users/Spencer/Documents/biz/JVillage/research/www.jvillagenetwork.comhttp://c/Users/Spencer/Documents/biz/JVillage/research/www.jvillagenetwork.comhttp://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=WrqR2fZGFFQR8UTU_2fcRhIA_3d_3dhttp://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=WrqR2fZGFFQR8UTU_2fcRhIA_3d_3dhttp://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=WrqR2fZGFFQR8UTU_2fcRhIA_3d_3dhttp://c/Users/Spencer/Documents/biz/JVillage/research/www.jvillagenetwork.com


3/15

2

Results

Survey Respondents

A total of 163responses were received, for a 7% return rate; 128 respondents fully completed thesurvey. This sample size is sufficient to provide a confidence interval (or margin of error) of

seven points, at a 95% confidence level. That is to say, there is a 95% chance that results for the

full population would be plus or minus 7 points of any percentages found in the analysis of thesurvey sample results. Moreover, the sample size is large enough to provide acceptable power to

detect statistically significant differences at a 95% confidence level.

Survey respondents represented primarily reform (51%) and conservative (33%) synagogues (see

Table 1).

Table 1: Affiliation of Respondents' Synagogues

Affiliation Frequency Percent

Reform 69 51%

Reconstructionist 6 4%

Conservative 44 33%

Orthodox 9 7%

Reform/Conservative 2 1%

Not affiliated 4 3%

Total 134 100%

The majority of respondents (73%) were paid staff members, either clergy, executive directors or

other staff members (see Table 2). Two respondents identified as webmasters, however it wasnot clear if these were paid or volunteer positions.

Table 2: Respondents' Position at Synagogue

Position Frequency Percent

Clergy 36 27%

Executive Director 36 27%

Staff member 25 19%

Board member 23 17%

Volunteer (not on board) 12 9%

Webmaster 2 1%

Total 134 100%


4/15

3

Respondents represented synagogues from 20 member households to 2700 member households;on average the synagogues served 435 member households (see Table 3). Most respondentssynagogues had Hebrew Schools, serving from a few to 750 students, with an average of 148

students (see Table 4).

Table 3: Number of Member Households in Respondents' Synagogues

Number of households Frequency Percentless than 250 46 35%

250 to 500 54 41%

501 to 1000 20 15%

more than 1000 12 9%

Total 132 100%

Table 4: Number of Students in Respondent's Synagogue Hebrew School

Number of children in Hebrew school Frequency Percent

None 10 8%

Less than 50 34 27%

50 to 100 24 19%

101 to 200 25 20%

201 to 400 22 18%

more than 400 10 8%

Total 125 100%

Website Engages Community

The survey asked respondents to provide an overall rating of their website in engaging their

community. Very few respondents felt the website was extremely effective and about one-

third felt it was very good. The majority of respondents felt their website just provided basicinformation (see Table 5).

Table 5: Overall Rating of Synagogue Website for Engaging Community

Rate website in engaging community Frequency Percent

Extremely effective strategic use of technology 5 4%

Very good, but could use more interactive features or design 44 33%

Provides basic information 73 54%

Doesn't serve as a tool to engage community 12 9%

Total 134 100%


5/15

4

Website Design

About a third of the respondents said they had hired professionals to design and build the

synagogue website; nearly half had used volunteers to do so (see Table 6). Other approaches

included: using the URJ website template (n=8), combinations of volunteers and professionals(n=7); and committees working with Darim (n=3).

Table 6: Respondents' Synagogue Strategies for Designing Website

How did you design and build website Frequency Percent

Hired professional 48 29%

Staff with expertise 9 6%

Staff without expertise 7 4%

Volunteer with expertise 56 34%

Volunteer without expertise 16 10%

Other 27 17%

Total 163 100%

About half of the respondents reported that their website had been redesigned within the past two

years (see Table 7).

Table 7: Respondents' Report Last Synagogue Website Redesign

When did you last redesign website Frequency Percent

Within past year 45 28%

One to two years ago 35 21%

More than two years ago 50 31%

More than five years ago 11 7%

Haven't redesigned 22 13%Total 163 100%

The majority of respondents were satisfied with the way the design and function of their websites

(see Table 8). Respondents often did not know if members were satisfied with the website.

Table 8: Respondents' Satisfaction Ratings with Website Design and Function

Satisfaction with

website

Look of Website How site Works Members Satisfied

Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent

Extremely satisfied 36 22% 24 15% 27 17%

Somewhat satisfied 79 48% 82 50% 62 38%

Not sure 6 4% 14 9% 48 29%

Somewhat dissatisfied 28 17% 35 21% 21 13%

Not at all satisfied 14 9% 8 5% 5 3%

Total 163 100% 163 100% 163 100%


6/15

5

The more recently websites were redesigned, the more likely respondents were satisfied withtheir design (F(4,158)=11.0, p


7/15

6

Updating Website

The majority of respondents said their websites were updated at least weekly (see Table 11).

Table 11: Frequency of Synagogue Website Updates

Frequency of updates Frequency Percent

Daily to several times a week 38 24%

Once a week 68 43%

Several times a month 23 14%

Once a month 22 14%

Rarely or never 9 6%

Total 160 100%

Websites were updated most often by a synagogue staff member (see Table 12).

Table 12: Party Responsible for Updating Synagogue Website

Who updates the website Frequency PercentContracted webmaster 6 4%

One staff member 66 41%

One volunteer 48 30%

Staff or volunteer in charge of area updates 27 17%

Other 10 6%

We do not update website 3 2%

Total 160 100%

Websites updated by paid staff were updated more frequently (see Table 13).

Table 13: Frequency of Website Update by Party Responsible for Updating

Who updates the website

Frequency of website updates

Daily to several

times a week

Once a

week

Several times

a month

Once a

month

Rarely

or neverTotal

Contracted webmaster 2 2 1 1 0 6

One staff member 17 33 8 7 1 66

One volunteer 6 16 10 12 4 48

Person doing area updates 10 13 3 1 0 27

Other 3 4 1 1 1 10

We do not update website 0 0 0 0 3 3

Total 38 68 23 22 9 160


8/15

7

Website Analytics

The majority of respondents did not review web analytics (see Table 14). Of those who did,

there was a wide range of unique visitors to sites, from under 200 to more than 1000 each month

(see Table 15).

Table 14: Respondents Report that Synagogue Reviews Website AnalyticsCurrently review web analytics Frequency Percent

No 105 66%

Yes 24 15%

Don't know 31 19%

Total 160 100%

Table 15: Number of Unique Website Visitors according to Analytics

Number unique visitors Frequency Percent

200 or less 8 53%201 to 999 3 20%

1000 or more 4 27%

total 15 100%


9/15

8

Interactive Features

The survey presented respondents with a list of possible interactive website features and asked

about the availability of each. Respondents most often reported that their websites were

searchable, provided updated Jewish themed content, news of the Jewish world and Israel, andopportunities for donations. When asked to rate the importance of each feature, respondents

ranked features which allowed features allowing for various sorts of registration and payment

among the most important, along with a searchable website (see Table 16).

Table 16: Availability and Importance of Interactive Features on Website

(Importance: 1=not at all important to 5=extremely important)

Features currently

on Website

Available Not Available Don't Know Importance

Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Frequency PercentMean

rating

Donations 58 40% 86 59% 2 1% 4.44

Registration for

events51 35% 94 64% 1 1% 4.31

Payment for events 34 23% 109 75% 3 2% 4.21

Membership

application42 29% 97 66% 6 4% 4.09

Searchable website 83 57% 57 39% 8 5% 4.05

Payment of dues 23 16% 117 80% 4 3% 4.04

School registration 30 21% 108 74% 4 3% 4.00

Sign up to volunteer

on-line21 14% 124 85% 1 1% 3.87

Updated Jewish

themed content72 49% 72 49% 4 3% 3.74

News of Jewish world

& Israel 64 44% 75 51% 5 3% 3.69

Member access to

directory22 15% 120 82% 3 2% 3.59

Downloadable

podcasts26 18% 117 80% 2 1% 3.29

Blogs 31 21% 111 76% 2 1% 3.26

Monitor child's

progress6 4% 135 92% 2 1% 3.19

Secured access to

member account10 7% 131 90% 4 3% 3.05

Streaming religious

services 4 3% 137 94% 2 1% 2.82

Customize homepage 4 3% 133 91% 6 4% 2.20


10/15

9

Analyses were conducted to determine if ratings of the website design, function, membersatisfaction and community engagement were related to interactive availability of interactive

features. There were only six features for which there were no statistically significant

relationships: signup for volunteering on-line, payment for events, monitoring school

curriculum, customizing member homepage, streaming religious services, and updated Jewishthemed content. For all other features, the respondents rated websites significantly better if the

interactive features were available. In particular, for all the interactive features listed in Table

17, respondents were significantly more likely to rate their synagogues website as effective inengaging the community if these features were present. Ratings of member satisfaction were

significantly higher when eight of the 12 features were available. Ratings of website function

were higher when seven of the features were present, and ratings of design were higher whenfive of the features were available. Table 17 presents probability levels for all statistically

significant differences revealed in Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) tests. If p


11/15

10

Calendar

When asked about their website calendar, respondents most often said they dont have but wouldfind useful on-line RSVP features and the ability to export information into members personal

calendars (see Table 18).

Table 18: Calendar Features on Synagogue Websites

Calendar FeaturesCurrent exists Don't have, would

be usefulDon't have, don't

need


Include recurring events 111 81% 25 18% 1 1%

Promote events on the web

homepage92 67% 38 28% 6 4%

Links to more information about

each event86 63% 47 34% 3 2%

Promote events on web subpages 86 63% 44 32% 7 5%

Import master calendar on to the

website49 36% 75 55% 12 9%

Color code event types 45 33% 61 45% 29 21%

Enable on-line RSVP 34 25% 98 72% 4 3%

Export into members' personal

calendars19 14% 96 70% 19 14%

Membership Management System

Very few respondents reported that their members can make changes to their accounts through

the website, and most respondents had no plans to enable this sort of access to the membershipmanagement system (see Table 19).

Table 19: Synagogue Members can Make Changes to Accounts through the Website

Members change accounts through the web Frequency Percent

Yes 3 2%

Not yet, plan for future 27 20%

No and no plans 84 62%

Don't have member management system 21 16%

Total 135 100%


12/15

11

Nearly half of respondents were not sure if such access was a good idea, they needed moreinformation to make such a decision (see Table 20). When asked if they had concerns about

member access to their accounts, the majority expressed concern about inaccuracies (see Table

21). Other concerns included:

In addition, we have links to people's accounts based on where they live. If they change their

address themselves, then the links would no longer be current.

Yes, and we like the personal contact

The office is less concerned than the members -- many members have high concerns about

access to member info through digital media

Most of our congregants are older and many do not have email let alone internet access.

Table 20: Respondents' Views on Enabling Members to Make Changes to their Accounts

through the Website

Respondents Views Frequency PercentAn excellent idea we have or hope to pursue 17 13%

A good idea, but don't have resources to pursue 32 24%

Not sure, need more information 59 44%

Not a good idea 27 20%

Total 135 100%

Table 21: Respondents' Concerns about Members Making Changes to their Accounts

through the Website

Concerns Frequency PercentNone 19 14%

Confidentiality 30 22%

Inaccuracies 75 56%

Other 11 8%

Total 135 100%


13/15

12

Social Media

While the majority of respondents report that their synagogues use FaceBook, very few have

Twitter accounts (see Table 22).

Table 22: Number of Synagogues that use FaceBook and Twitter

Synagogue usesFaceBook Twitter

Frequency Percent Frequency Percent

Yes, at least one page/account 89 66% 23 17%

Not at present, hope to in future 22 16% 39 29%

No and no plans to do so 23 17% 72 54%

Total 134 100% 134 100%

The most common reason for avoiding the use of social media was the lack of staff or volunteer

time to monitor and update the sites (see Table 23). There was very little concern with

understanding how to set up and use social media.

Table 23: Reasons Respondents Avoid or Limit use of Social Media

ReasonsNot at all an issue Might be an issue Definitely an issue


Not sure how to set up and get

started95 71% 28 21% 8 6%

Lack information on how best to

use for engaging members61 46% 52 39% 18 14%

Lack of staff or volunteer time tomonitor and update

24 18% 54 41% 55 41%

Members not interested in using

social media61 46% 61 46% 10 8%

Concerns about content that

might appear37 28% 65 49% 31 23%

Concerns about lack of direct

human contact57 43% 47 35% 27 20%


14/15

13

On-line Shopping for Fund Raising

When asked if they might be willing to use on-line shopping as a fund raising tool, about half of

the respondents said they were likely to do so (see Table 24). There were really no issues that

definitely inhibited the use of on-line shopping, though concerns about member use and costmight be operating (see Table 25).

Table 24: Willingness to use On-Line Shopping for Fund Raising

Willingness to use on-line shopping Frequency Percent

Not at all likely 12 9%

Somewhat unlikely 15 11%

Not sure 33 25%

Somewhat likely 41 31%

Very likely 33 25%

Total 134 100%

Table 25: Reasons Not to Use On-Line Shopping for Fund Raising

ReasonsNot at all an issue Might be an issue Definitely an issue


Do not expect members to

use 48 36% 74 55% 12 9%

Concern aboutcharacterization of

synagogue 58 43% 54 40% 18 13%

Past experience hasn't been

positive 96 72% 27 20% 6 4%

Would cost too much for

synagogue 52 39% 68 51% 11 8%


15/15

14

Content

Survey respondents were presented with a list of possible content and asked about their

importance. The content area with the highest mean rating was webinars for improving the

synagogue website (see Table 26).

Table 26: Respondents Ratings of Importance of Website Content

(1=not at all important to 5=extremely important)

Important for synagogue to

have

Not important Not sure Important Mean

RatingFrequency percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent

Webinars for improving our

website10 7% 20 15% 103 77% 3.98

Regular delivery of new Jewish

themed content to website20 15% 33 25% 80 60% 3.51

On-line toolkits to help members

prepare for life cycle events16 12% 47 35% 70 52% 3.46

Webinars on fundraising

techniques24 18% 39 29% 70 52% 3.43

Information on programs for

specific segments of the

community

31 23% 27 20% 76 57% 3.37

Articles on the website to start

community discussion35 26% 35 26% 62 46% 3.22

Alternative worship service ideas 36 27% 48 36% 48 36% 3.00

Summary

This survey indicates that synagogues are actively using the internet, both through websites and

social networking. Indeed, the majority of respondents said their synagogues currently use

FaceBook.

However, more than half of the survey respondents felt that their synagogue websites provide

just basic information, but did not make full strategic use of the web to engage members. While

the majority of respondents were satisfied with their synagogues website design and function,most were not certain about member satisfaction with the website. Indeed, most respondents did

not use web analytics to track use of their sites. Satisfaction with websites was higher when thewebsite had been recently redesigned and if it provided a range of interactive features. Onefeature that respondents were less certain about using was member access to management

information systems.

Engaging Jewish Communities Through the Web

Documents

Transcript of Engaging Jewish Communities Through the Web