Download - 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/ -
8/8/2019 Engaging Jewish Communities Through the Web
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 -
8/8/2019 Engaging Jewish Communities Through the Web
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%
-
8/8/2019 Engaging Jewish Communities Through the Web
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%
-
8/8/2019 Engaging Jewish Communities Through the Web
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%
-
8/8/2019 Engaging Jewish Communities Through the Web
6/15
5
The more recently websites were redesigned, the more likely respondents were satisfied withtheir design (F(4,158)=11.0, p
-
8/8/2019 Engaging Jewish Communities Through the Web
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
-
8/8/2019 Engaging Jewish Communities Through the Web
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%
-
8/8/2019 Engaging Jewish Communities Through the Web
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
-
8/8/2019 Engaging Jewish Communities Through the Web
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
-
8/8/2019 Engaging Jewish Communities Through the Web
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
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
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%
-
8/8/2019 Engaging Jewish Communities Through the Web
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%
-
8/8/2019 Engaging Jewish Communities Through the Web
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
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
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%
-
8/8/2019 Engaging Jewish Communities Through the Web
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
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
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%
-
8/8/2019 Engaging Jewish Communities Through the Web
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.