Client: Gemeinschaft Home

Bright Ideas Communications

Kristen Whitney - Account Executive

Matt Jones - Research Director

Garrett Pelto - Assistant Research Director & Client Relations

Kara Redmond - Media & Issues Director

Emma Williams - Creative Director & Programming Manager

Public Relations Campaigns - SCOM 461

Dr. Meganck - James Madison University (JMU)

November 6, 2018
 CONTENTS

Cover Page……………………………………………………………………...1

Executive Summary……………………………………………………………3

Introduction…………………………………………………………………….4

Rationale………………………………………………………………………..4

Methods………………………………………………………………………....5

Results…………………………………………………………………………..7

Practical Implications………………………………………………………….9

References……………………………………………………………………...11

Appendices……………………………………………………………………..11

Executive Summary

Introduction
 This report outlines the primary research that has been conducted for the organization,
Gemeinschaft Home (GH). GH is a residential, transitional facility for non-violent, non-sexual
ex-offenders in Harrisonburg, Virginia. The report includes our research questions, methods,
procedures and results, as well as practical implications. Our goal is to increase awareness
about GH, as well as increase positive attitudes towards ex-offenders among our key publics
of college students within the area and Harrisonburg community members.

Research Questions
Based on our secondary research that was previously made, we have devised five
research questions. The research questions include the following:
1. What is the current level of awareness surrounding GH amongst key publics?
2. What are the general attitudes surrounding ex-offenders amongst key publics?
3. What are attitudes surrounding transitional facilities like GH amongst key publics?
4. What motivational factors impact intent to support transitional facilities such as GH
amongst key publics?
5. What preferred communication channels should be utilized when communicating with
key publics?

Methods
The method used for this study was an online survey via Qualtrics, which consisted of
17 questions. The survey was distributed by mass email to JMU students, posted to Facebook
on Harrisonburg community pages, and invitational flyers with the link and QR code
included. Survey questions included a mix of multiple choice as well as Likert scale
statements in order to gauge individuals’ awareness and attitudes towards GH and ex-
offenders.

Results
There were a total of 208 college student responses and 27 Harrisonburg community
member responses. The data from the survey was analyzed using SPSS. Our results reflected
extremely low awareness levels among students and bordering attitudes towards ex-offenders.
These results will help in future planning.

Practical Implications
Based on the primary research findings, majority of individuals were unaware and
unfamiliar with GH. The findings also showed that majority of individuals did not have overly
positive attitudes about ex-offenders or were on the line. This has prompted us to focus our
campaign on increasing awareness of GH and increasing positive attitudes towards ex-
offenders.

Introduction
Gemeinschaft Home (GH) is a residential, transitional facility for non-violent, non-
sexual ex-offenders located in Harrisonburg, Virginia. As the largest transitional facility for
ex-offenders in the state of Virginia, the non-profit’s mission is to utilize a therapeutic model
that acclimates their residents back into a healthy and productive lifestyle post-incarceration
(Gemeinschaft Home, 2018). Organizations like GH can have a large impact on ex-offenders;
in a study conducted by Eastern Mennonite University, ex-offenders who completed a stay at
GH were significantly less likely to be re-arrested than individuals who completed therapeutic
programs pre-release while in prison (EMU, 2014). GH wants to increase overall community
awareness of their non-profit, particularly amongst college students and community members,
in hopes of crushing the various stigmas surrounding ex-offenders and to increase
volunteership and donations. Currently, GH communicates with their donors and the
community through their website, monthly newsletters, and some social media. This
organization conducts little to no communication with the local media and prefers to produce
their own mass messages to the community.
To increase awareness of GH, particularly for millenials, GH needs to utilize their
social media platforms more and promote their own work, events and residents. In a study
conducted by various researchers at the Pew Research Center, millennials claimed their
generation is unique due to their use and fluency with technology, as well as their high levels
of social tolerance. According to Pew, millennials view their social devices almost like a
second body part, and by a ratio of more than two to one, younger people were said to be
more tolerant of racial and social groups different than them than older people are (Pew
Research Center, 2010). Given the various stigmas that surround GH’s residents, it is
extremely beneficial for the organization to tap into millennials’ open-mindedness and
willingness for change; the perfect medium to reach this public is social media given how
heavily they rely on it to communicate and receive information.
After identifying GH’s need for awareness amongst millennials and community
members, the researchers formulated five research questions in order to better understand the
community members and college students stance on transitional facilities like GH and ex-
offenders in general. This research was conducted over the course of two weeks, closing on
October 19th in order to evaluate the key publics’ awareness, attitudes, and motivating factors
toward GH and its residents.
A survey was concluded as the best tool of research given its ability to reach large
groups of individuals fairly quickly. In order to gather data for the research questions, the
researchers became IRB certified and distributed a 17 question survey through the SONA
Research System at James Madison University and at various public spaces in the
Harrisonburg community. Respondents to the survey remained anonymous in order to ensure
honest feedback.

Research Questions
Based on previously conducted research on GH, ex-offenders and transitional
facilities, the researchers formulated five research questions. These research questions focus
on community members and college students awareness, attitudes and motivating factors to
support GH and in order to better understand the stance these key publics have on facilities
like GH and the population they serve (ex-offenders).
The research questions also focus on the best medium of communication to reach these
key publics, in order to determine what GH communication sources are the most valuable at
increasing awareness.
The survey questions were formatted to analyze college students versus community
members, therefore respondents were asked an initial filter question of whether they identify
as a student or a Harrisonburg community member. The data revealed which target public,
student or community member, felt about organizations like GH and ex-offenders. The
research questions are as follows:
1. What is the current level of awareness surrounding GH amongst key publics?
2. What are the general attitudes surrounding ex-offenders amongst key publics?
3. What are attitudes surrounding transitional facilities like GH amongst key publics?
4. What motivational factors impact intent to support transitional facilities such as GH
amongst key publics?
5. What preferred communication channels should be utilized when communicating with
key publics?

Methods

Sampling
Researchers distributed an online survey via Qualtrics in order to answer our research
questions using convenience sampling methods. In order to reach our key publics of students
in the area and the Harrisonburg community, a mass email was sent to JMU students, the
survey was posted on Harrisonburg community Facebook pages and flyers with the survey
code were distributed outside the Harrisonburg Co-op and Harrisonburg Valley Mall.

Procedure
To answer our research questions thoroughly we employed a 17-question survey
through Qualtrics. Our survey included a number of questions regarding demographics and
overall awareness and attitudes toward GH. In our research before this study, we identified a
lack of awareness toward the organization, so we thought a survey was the best form of
measurement as it reaches a large number of individuals quickly. In our preliminary
questions, we narrowed down our audience to help conduct further research. The preliminary
questions filtered respondents, asking, “Are you a resident of the Harrisonburg community
(non-student), or a student attending an educational institution in the area?,” based on the
responses to question one, follow-up questions were asked. Individuals who responded to
question one as community members were asked, “How long (in years) have you been a
resident of Harrisonburg community?” People who reported as a student were asked, “Which
institution do you attend?” and “Are you an undergraduate student?” If students responded as
undergraduate students, they were then asked to answer, “Are you an undergraduate student?”
To answer our first research question, “What is the current level of awareness
surrounding GH amongst key publics?,” we tried to assess who has and has not heard of
Gemeinschaft Home. We asked participants to respond with how strongly they agree or
disagree with the following statements: “I have heard of Gemeinschaft Home” and
“Gemeinschaft Home is an organization with which I am familiar.”
For our second research question, “What are the general attitudes surrounding ex-
offenders amongst key publics?,” we wanted to assess the community members and students
attitudes toward ex-offenders. We asked participants to rate the following adjectives on a six-
point semantic differential scale to describe their feelings toward ex-offenders: favorable to
unfavorable, unpleasant to pleasant, bad to good, and negative to positive. In addition, we also
asked participants to rate how strongly they agree or disagree on a six-point Likert scale with
statements like, “Ex-offenders are good people that have encountered negative circumstances”
and “ex-offenders deserve to be treated fairly in matters of employment.”
 For our third research question, “What are attitudes surrounding transitional facilities
like GH amongst key publics?,” we asked participants again to rate the adjectives on a six-
point semantic differential scale to describe their feelings toward transitional facilities. The
adjectives were as follows: unfavorable to favorable, unpleasant to pleasant, bad to good, and
negative to positive. Similar to the last research question, we also asked participants to rate
how strongly they agree or disagree on a six-point Likert scale for statements like, “I feel
transitional homes within the community are a benefit to society.”
For our fourth research question, “What motivational factors impact intent to support
transitional facilities such as GH amongst key publics?,” we wanted to understand how
willing the community members and students would be to support transitional housing. We
asked participants to respond how strongly they agree or disagree on a six-point Likert scale
toward statements like, “I would be willing to support a transitional housing facility that
places emphasis on therapeutic services” and “I would only support a transitional facility that
treats ex-offenders with respect.”
For our fifth research question, “What preferred communication channels should be
utilized when communicating with key publics?,” we wanted to identify the best, most
efficient way to reach community members and students in the area. We asked participants to
answer how frequently they use Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Snapchat, Pinterest,
other social media, cable TV, local access TV or podcast with the possible answers being
1=multiple times per day, 2=once per day 3=few times per week, 4=about once per month,
5=very infrequently, 6=never.

Results
The survey yielded 245 total respondents, with 27 respondents indicating their status
as community members, and 208 respondents indicating their status as college students and 10
respondents were filtered out as neither non-residents or non-students.
Of community members surveyed, respondents indicated they had been residents of
Harrisonburg between 1 and 59 years. Of the community member respondents with regard to
genders 5 responded as male, 19 female, 1 preferred not to say and 2 responded as other. In
regard to community members’ ethnicity, 20 indicated their status as white, 2 as black, 2 as
Latino, and 3 as other.
Of students surveyed, 36 indicated they were male, 168 female, 3 other, and 1
preferred not to say. With regard to student ethnicity, 172 indicated they were white, 10 black,
9 Latino, and 13 other. 207 were undergraduates with 1 being a postgraduate. 184 students
were freshman, 11 sophomores, 4 juniors, and 9 seniors, all attending James Madison
University.

RQ1: What is the current level of awareness surrounding GH amongst key publics?

Upon review of the survey data, it was found that there were statistically significant
differences in levels of awareness. The first question to measure awareness read, ‘I have heard
of GH.’ In response to this question it was found that there are higher levels of awareness
among members of the Harrisonburg community (M=4.30, SD=2.584) and lower levels of
awareness among students (M=1.43, SD= 1.169),
The second item intended to measure awareness read ‘GH is an organization with
which I am familiar.’ In response to this item, it was found that there are higher levels of
awareness among members of the Harrisonburg community (M=3.70, SD=2.250) and lower
levels of awareness among college students.
(M=1.35, SD=1.029).

RQ2. What are the general attitudes surrounding ex-offenders amongst key publics?

Upon review of the survey data, it was found that there were statistically significant
differences in attitudes surrounding ex-offenders amongst key publics. The first set of items
used to measure attitudes asked respondents to indicate attitudes using a semantic differential
scale. The first item in the set read, ‘Unfavorable to Favorable.’ This study found a
statistically significant difference in the attitudes toward ex-offenders between the key publics
with community members (M=3.52 SD=1.39) having less favorable attitudes than students
(M=4.11 SD=1.27) with regard to the first semantic differential item.
The second semantic differential item read, ‘Unpleasant to Pleasant.’ This study found
a statistically significant difference in the attitudes toward ex-offenders between the key
publics, with community members (M=3.52 SD=1.42) having more pleasant attitudes than
students (M=2.88 SD=1.28) in regard to the second semantic differential item.
The third semantic differential item read, ‘Negative to Positive.’ This study found a
statistically significant difference in the attitudes toward ex-offenders between the key publics
with community members (M=3.59 SD=1.33) having more positive attitudes than students
(M=2.80 SD=1.24) in regard to the third semantic differential item.
This survey also measured attitudes with value statements that respondents were asked
to rate on a 6-point Likert Scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (6).
The first value statement reads, ‘ex-offenders deserve to be treated fairly in matters of
employment.’ This study found a statistically significant difference in the attitudes toward ex-
offenders between the key publics with community members (M=4.59M=4.59 SD=1.04)
having more positive attitudes toward ex-offenders than students (M=3.94 SD=1.14).
The third value statement reads, ‘ex-offenders are bad people who have created their
own unfortunate circumstances.’ This item was reverse coded so that the 6-point scale would
position most positive attitudes as a 6 as to align with the rest of the survey. This study found
a statistically significant difference in the attitudes toward ex-offenders between the key
publics, with community members (M=4.29 SD=0.99) having more positive attitudes toward
the circumstance of ex-offenders than students (M=3.73 SD=1.09).
The fourth value statement reads, ‘ex-offenders have paid their debt to society.’ This
study found a statistically significant difference in the attitudes toward ex-offenders between
the key publics with community members (M=4.22 SD=.801) having more positive attitudes
toward ex-offenders and their repaying of debt to society than students (M=3.64 SD=1.09).

RQ3: What are attitudes surrounding transitional facilities like GH amongst key publics?

No results from this research question yielded statistically significant results.

RQ4: What motivational factors impact intent to support transitional facilities such as GH
amongst key publics?
 Intent to support a transitional housing facility such as GH was also measured in this
survey with statements that respondents were asked to rate on a 6-point Likert Scale ranging
from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (6).
The first statement read, ‘I would not be willing to support a transitional housing
facility because I feel that ex-offenders must deal with their own mistakes that they’ve
created.’ This item was reverse coded so that the 6-point scale would position the strongest
intent to support as a 6 as to align with the rest of the survey. It was found that there is a
statistically significant difference between college students (M = 4.37, SD = 1.23) and
Harrisonburg community members (M = 5.20, SD = .817) in their opinions on whether or not
they would support a transitional housing facility because they feel ex-offenders must deal
with their own mistakes. Harrisonburg community members reported a stronger intent to
support based on this item than college students did.
The second statement read, ‘I would be willing to support transitional housing facility
if I felt an emotional connection with the organization.’ It was found that there is a statistically
significant difference between college students (M = 4.03, SD = 1.20) and Harrisonburg
community members (M = 3.32, SD = 1.31) in their opinions on whether or not they would
support a transitional housing facility if they felt an emotional connection with the
organization. College students were concluded to have a stronger intent to support based on an
emotional connection compared to Harrisonburg community members for this item.

RQ5. What preferred communication channels should be utilized when communicating with
key publics?

This study also sought to evaluate the most relevant communication channels to utilize
when communicating with the key publics. The frequency of use was measured in this survey
by asking respondents to rate how often they use the communication channel on a 6-point
Likert Scale ranging from to multiple times per day (1) Never (6).
This study found that members of the Harrisonburg community used Twitter
significantly less (M= 4.52, SD= 2.04) than students (M= 3.0, SD= 2.14); community
members use Facebook significantly more (M= 1.8, SD= 1.11) than students (M= 2.78, SD=
1.80); Harrisonburg community members used Instagram significantly less (M= 3.16, SD=
2.17) than students (M= 1.53, SD= 1.27); Harrisonburg community members used Snapchat
significantly less (M= 3.76, SD=2.24) than students (M= 1.31, SD= 1.03); members of the
Harrisonburg community used Cable TV significantly more (M= 3.68, SD=1.70) than students
(M= 4.42, SD= 1.41); members of the Harrisonburg community used Local Access TV
significantly more (M= 4.04, SD=1.51) than students attending a school in the area (M= 4.76,
SD= 1.40); the study found that members of the Harrisonburg community used Podcasts
significantly more (M= 4.20, SD=1.68) than students attending a school in the area (M= 5.32,
SD= 1.14).

Practical Implications
According to our primary research findings, a majority of our publics have not heard
of Gemeinschaft Home (GH). Over 74% of respondents reported little to no awareness of GH.
However, community members tended to have a higher level of awareness (M=4.30,
SD=2.584) than students (M=1.43, SD= 1.169).
 Based on this statistical finding, GH should focus on spreading the awareness about its
work within the Harrisonburg community in order to be recognized and viewed as a credible
organization to the members of the community and students. Due to the lack of awareness
within the student populations, it is important that GH utilizes certain communication
channels that this particular public prefers and heavily utilizes.
The majority of community members had a less negative attitude about ex-offenders
compared to students. This study found a statistically significant difference in the attitudes
toward ex-offenders between the key publics with community members (3.59) having more
positive attitudes than students (2.80). t (233) = 3.074, p= .002.
If GH were able to alter the perspective of key publics toward ex-offenders, they could
increase awareness and participation in their organization. Since Harrisonburg community
members have a more favorable attitude toward ex-offenders, GH can draw on their support to
achieve their goals, such as gaining more volunteership and donations.
There is a statistical significance between college students (M = 4.03, SD = 1.20) and
Harrisonburg community members (M = 3.32, SD = 1.31) in their opinions on whether or not
they would support a transitional housing facility if they felt an emotional connection with the
organization t(231) = -2.76, p = .006.
With this finding, it can be concluded that emotional appeal is a factor that GH can
apply to their messages in order to gain more support and empathy from key publics. The
survey revealed that a majority of people (74%) are unfamiliar with GH and its mission.
Strengthening the awareness of GH in the community can increase the likelihood of fostering
an emotional connection from community members to transitional housing facilities and ex-
offenders.
Based on the survey, community members and students prefer different types of
communication channels. A majority of community members responded that Facebook,
Instagram, and Snapchat were their primary methods of communication. 56% of community
members used Facebook multiple times a day, while only 37% of students reported using
Facebook multiple times in one day. 40% of community members said they used Instagram
multiple times a day. 28% of community members reported they used Snapchat multiple times
a day. A majority of students responded that Snapchat, Instagram, and Twitter were their
preferred method of communication, with 88% reporting that they use Snapchat multiple
times throughout the day. 77% of students also said that they used Instagram multiple times a
day. Over 44% of students used Twitter multiple times a day.
Based on these findings, GH can implement key messages across these mediums to
reach a wider range of the Harrisonburg population. Instagram and Snapchat are the primary
methods of social media usage for both key publics. These applications should be used as the
principal structures when generating awareness and support from these populations.
 Bibliography

Gemeinschaft Home. (2018). Mission & Vision. Retrieved from

https://www.gemeinschafthome.org/mission--vision.html

Kara (2014, July 08). It's their home – helping inmates live outside walls - EMU
News. Retrieved from https://emu.edu/now/news/2014/03/its-their-home-helping-
inmates-live-outside-walls/

Pew Research Center. (2010). Millennials: A Portrait of Generation Next. Generation

Next.

Appendices

Appendix 1: IRB Approval

Appendix 1.2: Social Media Post/Survey Flyer

Text Approval

Sample Email

Dear James Madison University Students,

Our SCOM 461 group needs participants for our survey. We are conducting the study to learn
more about the student and community member awareness/attitudes towards previously
incarcerated individuals. The survey is taken using Qualtrics, a secure data sampling website. Your
responses will remain anonymous and only the researchers and the research advisor will have
access to the data. After our study is over, we are going to destroy the data. You must be over 18 to
participate in the survey. The survey should not take any longer than 10 minutes.

You can choose to opt out of the survey at any time. If you have any questions please email
@dukes.jmu.edu

Matthew Jones, Research Director

**Insert Qualtrics Link Here*

1. Dear James Madison University Students,

Our SCOM 461 group needs participants for our survey. We are conducting the study to learn
more about student and community member awareness/attitudes towards previously incarcerated
individuals. The survey is taken using Qualtrics, a secure data sampling website. Your responses
will remain anonymous and the survey should not take any longer than 10 minutes.

You can choose to opt out of the survey at any time. If you have any questions please email
jones7mc@dukes.jmu.edu

**Insert Qualtrics Link Here*

2. Dear Harrisonburg Community Members,

We are JMU students and our SCOM 461 group needs participants for our survey. We are
conducting the study to learn more about student and community member awareness/attitudes
towards previously incarcerated individuals. The survey is taken using Qualtrics, a secure data
sampling website. Your responses will remain anonymous and the survey should not take any
longer than 10 minutes.

You can choose to opt out of the survey at any time. If you have any questions please email
jones7mc@dukes.jmu.edu

**Insert Qualtrics Link Here*

Social Media Posts

Invitational Flyer

Voice your thoughts. We want to hear from you!

We are JMU students conducting a survey to learn more about student and community member
awareness/attitudes towards previously incarcerated individuals. The survey should not take more
than 10 minutes of your time.

*Provide survey link*

Invitational Flyer Design

(Front)

(Back)
Appendix 1.3: Survey

Q1. Awareness of Gemeinschaft Home (RQ1)

Please state how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statements.

Strongly Disagree---Disagree---Slightly Disagree----Slightly Agree----Agree---Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5 6

1.) I have heard of Gemeinschaft Home.

2.) Gemeinschaft Home is an organization with which I am familiar.
3.) I am aware of the Gemeinschaft Home organization.

Description of Gemeinschaft Home:

Gemeinschaft Home provides cutting edge therapeutic services in the form of a transitional
home to nonviolent offenders who have been released or diverted from incarceration for non-
violent, non-sexual crimes. Gemeinschaft Home’s mission is to provide a transitional space
for ex-offenders and provide them with the tools to lead a healthy, productive life outside of
incarceration. In addition to full-time room and board for a minimum of 90 days,
Gemeinschaft’s program includes mandatory counseling, and residents are required to
actively seek and/or maintain employment while living at Gemeinschaft Home. All residents
are obligated to participate in daily chores and maintenance of communal living spaces and
to observe all house-rules, particularly curfew and abstinence from alcohol and drugs.

Q2. Attitudes surrounding ex-offenders (RQ2)

Please rate how the following adjectives describe your feelings towards ex-offenders:

Favorable 1–2–3–4–5–6 Unfavorable

Unpleasant 1–2–3–4–5–6 Pleasant
Good 1–2–3–4–5–6 Bad
Negative 1–2–3–4–5–6 Positive

Please state how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statements.

Strongly Disagree---Disagree---Slightly Disagree----Slightly Agree----Agree---Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5 6

1.) Ex-offenders are good people that have encountered negative circumstances.
2.) Ex-offenders deserve to be treated fairly in matters of employment.
3.) Ex-offenders are bad people who have created their own unfortunate
circumstances.
4.) Ex-offenders do not deserve equal employment opportunities.
5.) Ex-offenders have paid their debt to society.
6.) Ex-offenders must continue to pay the price of their choices.

Q3.: Attitudes surrounding transitional facilities such as Gemeinschaft Home (RQ3)

Please rate how the following adjectives describe your feelings towards transitional facilities
such as Gemeinschaft Home:
 Unfavorable 1–2–3–4–5–6 Favorable
Unpleasant 1–2–3–4–5–6 Pleasant
Bad 1–2–3–4–5–6 Good
Negative 1–2–3–4–5–6 Positive

Please state how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statements.

Strongly Disagree---Disagree---Slightly Disagree----Slightly Agree----Agree---Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5 6

1.) I feel that transitional homes within the community are a benefit to society.
2.) Community housing for former offenders helps establish a positive environment
for individuals reentering society.
3.) Transitional community housing leads to negative elements within the community.
4.) Transitional homes are effective at decreasing the frequency ex-offenders will
recommit crimes.

Q4: Motivational factors that impact intent to support transitional facilities such as
Gemeinschaft Home (RQ4)

Please state how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statements.

Strongly Disagree---Disagree---Slightly Disagree----Slightly Agree----Agree---Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5 6

1.) I would be willing to support a transitional housing facility that places emphasis on
therapeutic services.
2.) I would be willing to support a transitional housing facility that helps ex-offenders gain
employment.
3.) A transitional housing facility that helps ex-offenders recover from substance
dependencies is dangerous to the community.
4.) I would only support a transitional facility that treats ex-offenders with respect.
5.) I would only support a transitional housing facility that keeps a close watch on ex-
offenders.
6.) I would be willing to support a transitional facility that helps ex-offenders recover from
substance dependencies.
7.) I would support a transitional housing facility because I have a personal connection to
friends or family who has/have been incarcerated.
8.) I would only support a transitional housing facility that housed non-violent non-sexual
ex-offenders.
9.) I would not be willing to support a transitional housing facility because I feel that ex-
offenders must deal with their own mistakes that they’ve created.
10.) I would be willing to support transitional housing facility if I felt an emotional
connection with the organization.
11.) I would be willing to support a transitional housing facility in my community.
12.) I would not be willing to support a transitional housing facility in my community
because it allows the potential threat of unnecessary danger in my community.

Q5. Communication channel utilization (RQ5)

Please indicate the extent to which you use the following communication channels
 Multiple Times Per Day Once a day A few times per week Once a month Very infrequently
Never
1 2 3 4 5
6

1. Twitter
2. Facebook
3. Instagram
4. YouTube
5. Snapchat
6. TV news
7. Printed news
8. Radio news

Appendix E: Demographics

Please indicate the following demographic information:

1.) Gender:
a.) Male
b.) Female
c.) Other
d.) Prefer not to say

2.) Ethnicity:
a.) White
b.) Hispanic or Latino
c.) Black or African American
d.) Other

3.) Combined annual household income:

a.) Less than 49,999
b.) 50,000 – 74,999
c.) 75,000 – 99,999
d.) 100,000 or more

4.) Parental Status:

a.) I am the parent of child(ren) (12 and under)
b.) I am the parent of teenager(s) (13-18)
c.) I am the parent of adult(s) (19+)
d.) I am not a parent

5.) Political affiliations:

a.) Left-leaning (Democrat)
b.) Right-leaning (Republican)
c.) Unaffiliated (Independent)
d.) Prefer not to answer
Appendix 1.4: Data Tables

RQ1: What is the current level of awareness surrounding GH amongst key

publics?

Group Statistics
Std.
Std. Error
Q1.0_RvsS N Mean Deviation Mean

Q2_1_Awarness_G I am member of 27 4.30 2.584 .497

H the
harrisonburg
community

I am a student 208 1.43 1.169 .081

attending an
educational
institution in the
area

Independent Samples Test

 Levene's Test
for Equality of t-test for Equality of
Variances Means

Sig.
(2-
F Sig. t df tailed)

Q2_1_Awarness_ Equal 78.973 .000 10.01 233 .000

GH variances 7
assumed

Equal 5.693 27.39 .000

variances 7
not
assumed

Independent Samples Test

t-test for Equality of Means

95% Confidence
Interval of the
Mean
Difference
Differenc Std. Error
e Difference Lower Upper

Q2_1_Awarness_ Equal 2.868 .286 2.304 3.433

GH variances
assumed

Equal 2.868 .504 1.835 3.902

variances
not
 assumed

Group Statistics
Std.
Std. Error
Q1.0_RvsS N Mean Deviation Mean

Q2_2_Awarness_G I am member 27 3.70 2.250 .433

H2 of the
harrisonburg
community
 I am a student 208 1.35 1.029 .071
attending an
educational
institution in
the area

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test
for Equality of t-test for Equality of
Variances Means

Sig.
(2-
F Sig. t df tailed)

Q2_2_Awarness_G Equal 69.358 .000 9.37 233 .000

H2 variances 1
assumed

Equal 5.36 27.43 .000

variances 1 0
not
assumed

Independent Samples Test

t-test for Equality of Means
 95% Confidence
Interval of the
Mean
Difference
Differenc Std. Error
e Difference Lower Upper

Q2_2_Awarness_G Equal 2.353 .251 1.858 2.847

H2 variances
assumed

Equal 2.353 .439 1.453 3.253

variances
not
assumed
 RQ2: What are the general attitudes surrounding ex-offenders among key
publics?

Group Statistics
Std.
Std. Error
Q1.0_RvsS N Mean Deviation Mean

Q3_1_Feeling_ExS I am member 27 3.52 1.397 .269

D1 of the
harrisonburg
community

I am a student 208 4.11 1.270 .088

attending an
educational
institution in the
area

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test t-test for Equality of
for Equality of Means
Variances
 Sig.
(2-
F Sig. t df tailed)

Q3_1_Feeling_ExS Equal .169 .681 - 233 .026

D1 variances 2.235
assumed

Equal - 31.82 .046

variances 2.076 8
not
assumed

Independent Samples Test

t-test for Equality of Means

95% Confidence
Interval of the
Mean Std. Error
Difference
Differenc Differenc
e e Lower Upper

Q3_1_Feeling_ExS Equal -.587 .263 -1.105 -.070

D1 variances
assumed

Equal -.587 .283 -1.164 -.011

variances
not
assumed
 Group Statistics
Std.
Std. Error
Q1.0_RvsS N Mean Deviation Mean

Q3_2_Feeling_Ex_S I am member 27 3.52 1.424 .274

D2 of the
harrisonburg
community

I am a student 208 2.88 1.287 .089

attending an
educational
institution in
the area
 Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test
for Equality of t-test for Equality of
Variances Means

Sig.
(2-
F Sig. t df tailed)

Q3_2_Feeling_Ex_S Equal .724 .396 2.41 233 .017

D2 variances 5
assumed

Equal 2.23 31.75 .033

variances 2 7
not
assumed

Independent Samples Test

t-test for Equality of Means

95% Confidence
Interval of the
Mean Std. Error
Difference
Differenc Differenc
e e Lower Upper

Q3_2_Feeling_Ex_S Equal .644 .267 .118 1.169

D2 variances
assumed
Equal .644 .288 .056 1.231
variances
not
assumed

Group Statistics
Q1.0_RvsS N Mean Std. Std.
Deviation Error
 Mean

Q3_3_Feeling_Ex_S I am member 27 3.63 1.305 .251

D3 of the
harrisonburg
community

I am a student 208 4.08 1.231 .085

attending an
educational
institution in
the area

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test
for Equality t-test for Equality of
of Variances Means

Sig.
(2-
F Sig. t df tailed)

Q3_3_Feeling_Ex_S Equal .192 .662 - 233 .076

D3 variances 1.783
assumed
 Equal - 32.29 .098
variances 1.704 5
not
assumed

Independent Samples Test

t-test for Equality of Means

95% Confidence
Interval of the
Mean Std. Error
Difference
Differenc Differenc
e e Lower Upper

Q3_3_Feeling_Ex_S Equal -.452 .254 -.952 .047

D3 variances
assumed

Equal -.452 .265 -.992 .088

variances
not
assumed
 Group Statistics
Std.
Std. Error
Q1.0_RvsS N Mean Deviation Mean

Q3_4_Feeling_Ex_S I am member 27 3.59 1.338 .257

D4 of the
harrisonburg
community

I am a student 208 2.80 1.245 .086

attending an
educational
institution in
the area
 Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test
for Equality of t-test for Equality of
Variances Means

Sig.
(2-
F Sig. t df tailed)

Q3_4_Feeling_Ex_S Equal .014 .906 3.07 233 .002

D4 variances 4
assumed

Equal 2.90 32.12 .007

variances 9 7
not
assumed

Independent Samples Test

t-test for Equality of Means

95% Confidence
Interval of the
Mean Std. Error
Difference
Differenc Differenc
e e Lower Upper

Q3_4_Feeling_Ex_S Equal .790 .257 .284 1.296

D4 variances
assumed
 Equal .790 .272 .237 1.343
variances
not
assumed

Group Statistics
Std.
Std. Error
Q1.0_RvsS N Mean Deviation Mean
Q4_1_Feeling_Ex I am member of 27 3.81 1.001 .193
_1 the
harrisonburg
community

I am a student 208 3.50 1.045 .072

attending an
educational
institution in the
area

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test
for Equality of t-test for Equality of
Variances Means

Sig.
(2-
F Sig. t df tailed)

Q4_1_Feeling_E Equal .622 .431 1.502 233 .134

x_1 variances
assumed

Equal 1.552 33.78 .130

variances 3
not
assumed
 Independent Samples Test
t-test for Equality of Means

95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Mean Std. Error
Difference Difference Lower Upper

Q4_1_Feeling_Ex Equal .320 .213 -.100 .739

_1 variances
assumed

Equal .320 .206 -.099 .738

variances
not
assumed
 Group Statistics
Std.
Std. Error
Q1.0_RvsS N Mean Deviation Mean

Q4_2_Feeling_Ex I am member of 27 4.59 1.047 .202

_2 the
harrisonburg
community

I am a student 208 3.94 1.145 .079

attending an
educational
institution in the
area

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test t-test for Equality of
for Equality of Means
Variances
 Sig.
(2-
F Sig. t df tailed)

Q4_2_Feeling_E Equal .041 .840 2.802 233 .005

x_2 variances
assumed

Equal 3.002 34.58 .005

variances 7
not
assumed

Independent Samples Test

t-test for Equality of Means

95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Mean Std. Error
Difference Difference Lower Upper

Q4_2_Feeling_Ex Equal .650 .232 .193 1.107

_2 variances
assumed

Equal .650 .217 .210 1.090

variances
not
assumed
 Group Statistics
Std.
Std. Error
Q1.0_RvsS N Mean Deviation Mean

Q4_3_Feeling_Ex I am member of 27 4.2963 .99285 .19107

_3 the
harrisonburg
community

I am a student 208 3.7308 1.09660 .07604

attending an
educational
institution in the
area
 Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test
for Equality of t-test for Equality of
Variances Means

Sig.
(2-
F Sig. t df tailed)

Q4_3_Feeling_E Equal 1.200 .274 2.547 233 .012

x_3 variances
assumed

Equal 2.750 34.77 .009

variances 7
not
assumed

Independent Samples Test

t-test for Equality of Means

95% Confidence
Interval of the
Mean
Difference
Differenc Std. Error
e Difference Lower Upper
Q4_3_Feeling_Ex Equal .56553 .22205 .12804 1.00301
_3 variances
assumed

Equal .56553 .20565 .14794 .98311

variances
not
assumed
 Group Statistics
Std.
Std. Error
Q1.0_RvsS N Mean Deviation Mean

Q4_4_Feeling_Ex I am member of 27 4.6667 .83205 .16013

_4 the
harrisonburg
community

I am a student 208 4.2788 1.08976 .07556

attending an
educational
institution in the
area

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test
for Equality of t-test for Equality of
Variances Means

Sig.
(2-
F Sig. t df tailed)

Q4_4_Feeling_E Equal 2.187 .141 1.782 233 .076

x_4 variances
assumed
 Equal 2.190 38.62 .035
variances 7
not
assumed

Independent Samples Test

t-test for Equality of Means

95% Confidence
Interval of the
Mean
Difference
Differenc Std. Error
e Difference Lower Upper

Q4_4_Feeling_Ex Equal .38782 .21767 -.04104 .81668

_4 variances
assumed

Equal .38782 .17706 .02957 .74607

variances
not
assumed
 Group Statistics
Std.
Std. Error
Q1.0_RvsS N Mean Deviation Mean

Q4_5_Feeling_Ex I am member of 27 4.22 .801 .154

_5 the
harrisonburg
community

I am a student 208 3.64 1.094 .076

attending an
educational
institution in the
area
 Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test
for Equality of t-test for Equality of
Variances Means

Sig.
(2-
F Sig. t df tailed)

Q4_5_Feeling_E Equal 2.504 .115 2.653 233 .009

x_5 variances
assumed

Equal 3.366 39.83 .002

variances 2
not
assumed

Independent Samples Test

t-test for Equality of Means

95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Mean Std. Error
Difference Difference Lower Upper

Q4_5_Feeling_Ex Equal .578 .218 .149 1.007

_5 variances
assumed
Equal .578 .172 .231 .925
variances
not
assumed

Group Statistics
Q1.0_RvsS N Mean Std. Std.
Deviation Error
 Mean

Q4_6_Feeling_Ex I am member of 27 4.3704 1.30526 .25120

_6 the
harrisonburg
community

I am a student 208 3.9712 1.18327 .08205

attending an
educational
institution in the
area

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test
for Equality of t-test for Equality of
Variances Means

Sig.
(2-
F Sig. t df tailed)

Q4_6_Feeling_E Equal .868 .352 1.630 233 .105

x_6 variances
assumed

Equal 1.511 31.79 .141

variances 8
not
 assumed

Independent Samples Test

t-test for Equality of Means

95% Confidence
Interval of the
Mean
Difference
Differenc Std. Error
e Difference Lower Upper

Q4_6_Feeling_Ex Equal .39922 .24496 -.08340 .88184

_6 variances
assumed

Equal .39922 .26426 -.13919 .93762

variances
not
assumed
 RQ3: What are the general attitudes surrounding transitional facilities like GH

amongst key publics?

Group Statistics
Std.
Std. Error
Q1.0_RvsS N Mean Deviation Mean

Q5_1_Feeling_GH_1 I am member 26 4.62 1.444 .283

SD of the
harrisonburg
community
 I am a student 208 4.46 1.128 .078
attending an
educational
institution in
the area

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test
for Equality of t-test for Equality of
Variances Means

Sig.
(2-
F Sig. t df tailed)

Q5_1_Feeling_GH_1 Equal 4.214 .041 .654 232 .514

SD variances
assumed

Equal .540 28.94 .593

variances 0
not
assumed

Independent Samples Test

t-test for Equality of Means
 95% Confidence
Interval of the
Mean Std. Error
Difference
Differenc Differenc
e e Lower Upper

Q5_1_Feeling_GH_1 Equal .159 .243 -.319 .637

SD variances
assumed

Equal .159 .294 -.442 .760

variances
not
assumed

Group Statistics
 Std.
Std. Error
Q1.0_RvsS N Mean Deviation Mean

Q5_2_Feeling_GH_2 I am member 26 4.42 1.301 .255

SD of the
harrisonburg
community

I am a student 208 4.41 1.064 .074

attending an
educational
institution in
the area

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test
for Equality of t-test for Equality of
Variances Means

Sig.
(2-
F Sig. t df tailed)

Q5_2_Feeling_GH_2 Equal 4.907 .028 .064 232 .949

SD variances
assumed
 Equal .054 29.32 .957
variances 5
not
assumed

Independent Samples Test

t-test for Equality of Means

95% Confidence
Interval of the
Mean Std. Error
Difference
Differenc Differenc
e e Lower Upper

Q5_2_Feeling_GH_2 Equal .014 .227 -.433 .462

SD variances
assumed

Equal .014 .266 -.529 .558

variances
not
assumed
 Group Statistics
Std.
Std. Error
Q1.0_RvsS N Mean Deviation Mean

Q5_3_Feeling_GH_3 I am member 26 2.42 1.206 .236

SD of the
harrisonburg
community

I am a student 208 2.65 1.114 .077

attending an
educational
institution in
the area
 Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test
for Equality of t-test for Equality of
Variances Means

Sig.
(2-
F Sig. t df tailed)

Q5_3_Feeling_GH_3 Equal 1.097 .296 -.98 232 .325

SD variances 6
assumed

Equal -.92 30.58 .361

variances 8 2
not
assumed

Independent Samples Test

t-test for Equality of Means

95% Confidence
Interval of the
Mean Std. Error
Difference
Differenc Differenc
e e Lower Upper

Q5_3_Feeling_GH_3 Equal -.231 .234 -.692 .230

SD variances
assumed
Equal -.231 .249 -.738 .277
variances
not
assumed

Group Statistics
 Std.
Std. Error
Q1.0_RvsS N Mean Deviation Mean

Q5_4_Feeling_GH_4 I am member 26 4.73 1.373 .269

SD of the
harrisonburg
community

I am a student 208 4.50 1.090 .076

attending an
educational
institution in
the area

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test
for Equality of t-test for Equality of
Variances Means

Sig.
(2-
F Sig. t df tailed)

Q5_4_Feeling_GH_4 Equal 1.374 .242 1.00 232 .315

SD variances 8
assumed
 Equal .842 29.07 .406
variances 5
not
assumed

Independent Samples Test

t-test for Equality of Means

95% Confidence
Interval of the
Mean Std. Error
Difference
Differenc Differenc
e e Lower Upper

Q5_4_Feeling_GH_4 Equal .236 .234 -.225 .696

SD variances
assumed

Equal .236 .280 -.336 .807

variances
not
assumed
 Group Statistics
Std.
Std. Error
Q1.0_RvsS N Mean Deviation Mean

Q6_1_Feeling_GH I am member of 26 4.58 .857 .168

_1 the
harrisonburg
community

I am a student 208 4.64 .972 .067

attending an
educational
institution in the
area

Independent Samples Test

 Levene's Test
for Equality of t-test for Equality of
Variances Means

Sig.
(2-
F Sig. t df tailed)

Q6_1_Feeling_G Equal .113 .737 -.337 232 .737

H_1 variances
assumed

Equal -.372 33.59 .712

variances 4
not
assumed

Independent Samples Test

t-test for Equality of Means

95% Confidence
Interval of the
Mean
Difference
Differenc Std. Error
e Difference Lower Upper

Q6_1_Feeling_GH Equal -.067 .200 -.461 .326

_1 variances
assumed

Equal -.067 .181 -.435 .301

variances
not
assumed

Group Statistics
Std.
Std. Error
Q1.0_RvsS N Mean Deviation Mean
Q6_2_Feeling_GH I am member of 26 4.65 1.056 .207
_2 the
harrisonburg
community

I am a student 208 4.70 .977 .068

attending an
educational
institution in the
area

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test
for Equality of t-test for Equality of
Variances Means

Sig.
(2-
F Sig. t df tailed)

Q6_2_Feeling_G Equal .511 .475 -.234 232 .815

H_2 variances
assumed

Equal -.221 30.59 .827

variances 0
not
assumed
 Independent Samples Test
t-test for Equality of Means

95% Confidence
Interval of the
Mean
Difference
Differenc Std. Error
e Difference Lower Upper

Q6_2_Feeling_GH Equal -.048 .205 -.452 .356

_2 variances
assumed

Equal -.048 .218 -.493 .397

variances
not
assumed
 Group Statistics
Std.
Std. Error
Q1.0_RvsS N Mean Deviation Mean

Q6_3_Feeling_GH I am member 26 4.1154 .95192 .18669

_3 of the
harrisonburg
community

I am a student 208 4.2500 1.10116 .07635

attending an
educational
institution in
the area

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test
for Equality of t-test for Equality of
Variances Means

F Sig. t df Sig.
 (2-
tailed)

Q6_3_Feeling_G Equal .904 .343 -.596 232 .552

H_3 variances
assumed

Equal -.667 33.94 .509

variances 8
not
assumed

Independent Samples Test

t-test for Equality of Means

95% Confidence
Interval of the
Mean Std. Error
Difference
Differenc Differenc
e e Lower Upper

Q6_3_Feeling_GH Equal -.13462 .22592 -.57972 .31049

_3 variances
assumed

Equal -.13462 .20170 -.54454 .27531

variances
not
assumed
 Group Statistics
Std.
Std. Error
Q1.0_RvsS N Mean Deviation Mean

Q6_4_Feeling_GH I am member of 26 4.04 1.113 .218

_4 the
harrisonburg
community
 I am a student 208 4.20 1.020 .071
attending an
educational
institution in the
area

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test
for Equality of t-test for Equality of
Variances Means

Sig.
(2-
F Sig. t df tailed)

Q6_4_Feeling_G Equal .133 .716 -.762 232 .447

H_4 variances
assumed

Equal -.712 30.49 .482

variances 0
not
assumed

Independent Samples Test

t-test for Equality of Means
 95% Confidence
Interval of the
Mean
Difference
Differenc Std. Error
e Difference Lower Upper

Q6_4_Feeling_GH Equal -.163 .214 -.586 .259

_4 variances
assumed

Equal -.163 .229 -.632 .305

variances
not
assumed
 RQ4: What motivational factors impact intent to support transitional
facilities such as GH amongst key publics?

Group Statistics
Std. Std. Error
Q1.0_RvsS N Mean Deviation Mean

Q7_1_MF_1 I am member of 25 4.56 1.121 .224

the harrisonburg
community

I am a student 208 4.43 1.061 .074

attending an
educational
institution in the
area

Q7_2_MF_2 I am member of 25 4.72 1.061 .212

the harrisonburg
community

I am a student 208 4.42 1.074 .074

attending an
educational
institution in the
area
Q7_3_MF_3 I am member of 25 4.2800 1.36991 .27398
the harrisonburg
community

I am a student 208 4.1250 1.34191 .09304

attending an
educational
institution in the
area

Q7_4_MF_4 I am member of 25 5.12 .971 .194

the harrisonburg
community

I am a student 208 4.67 1.147 .079

attending an
educational
institution in the
area

Q7_5_MF_5 I am member of 25 4.48 1.005 .201

the harrisonburg
community

I am a student 208 4.30 1.099 .076

attending an
educational
institution in the
area

Q7_6_MF_6 I am member of 25 4.92 .909 .182

the harrisonburg
community
 I am a student 208 4.78 1.052 .073
attending an
educational
institution in the
area

Q7_7_MF_7 I am member of 25 2.36 1.287 .257

the harrisonburg
community

I am a student 208 2.66 1.613 .112

attending an
educational
institution in the
area

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for
Equality of
Variances t-test for Equality of Means

Sig. (2-
F Sig. t df tailed)

Q7_1_MF Equal .036 .850 .563 231 .574

_1 variances
assumed
 Equal .540 29.408 .594
variances not
assumed

Q7_2_MF Equal .071 .790 1.308 231 .192

_2 variances
assumed

Equal 1.320 30.217 .197

variances not
assumed

Q7_3_MF Equal .115 .735 .544 231 .587

_3 variances
assumed

Equal .536 29.809 .596

variances not
assumed

Q7_4_MF Equal 1.200 .275 1.889 231 .060

_4 variances
assumed

Equal 2.152 32.607 .039

variances not
assumed

Q7_5_MF Equal .002 .965 .768 231 .443

_5 variances
assumed

Equal .824 31.317 .416

variances not
assumed
Q7_6_MF Equal .524 .470 .620 231 .536
_6 variances
assumed

Equal .696 32.255 .491

variances not
assumed

Q7_7_MF Equal 4.057 .045 -.906 231 .366

_7 variances
assumed

Equal -1.081 33.774 .287

variances not
assumed

Independent Samples Test

t-test for Equality of Means
 95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Mean Std. Error
Difference Difference Lower Upper

Q7_1_MF_ Equal .127 .226 -.318 .573

1 variances
assumed

Equal .127 .236 -.355 .610

variances not
assumed

Q7_2_MF_ Equal .297 .227 -.150 .744

2 variances
assumed

Equal .297 .225 -.162 .756

variances not
assumed

Q7_3_MF_ Equal .15500 .28467 -.40589 .71589

3 variances
assumed

Equal .15500 .28935 -.43609 .74609

variances not
assumed

Q7_4_MF_ Equal .452 .239 -.019 .923

4 variances
assumed
 Equal .452 .210 .025 .879
variances not
assumed

Q7_5_MF_ Equal .177 .231 -.277 .631

5 variances
assumed

Equal .177 .215 -.261 .615

variances not
assumed

Q7_6_MF_ Equal .136 .220 -.297 .569

6 variances
assumed

Equal .136 .196 -.263 .535

variances not
assumed

Q7_7_MF_ Equal -.303 .335 -.963 .356

7 variances
assumed

Equal -.303 .281 -.874 .267

variances not
assumed
 Group Statistics
Std. Std. Error
Q1.0_RvsS N Mean Deviation Mean

Q7_8_MF_8 I am member of 25 4.28 1.242 .248

the harrisonburg
community

I am a student 208 4.22 1.198 .083

attending an
educational
institution in the
area

Q7_9_MF_9 I am member of 25 5.2000 .81650 .16330

the harrisonburg
community

I am a student 208 4.3654 1.22815 .08516

attending an
educational
institution in the
area

Q7_10_MF_9 I am member of 25 3.32 1.314 .263

the harrisonburg
community
 I am a student 208 4.03 1.204 .083
attending an
educational
institution in the
area

Q7_11_MF_11 I am member of 25 4.32 1.215 .243

the harrisonburg
community

I am a student 208 4.05 1.143 .079

attending an
educational
institution in the
area

Q7_12_MF_1 I am member of 25 4.4400 1.08321 .21664

2 the harrisonburg
community

I am a student 208 3.9663 1.36690 .09478

attending an
educational
institution in the
area

Independent Samples Test

 Levene's Test for
Equality of
Variances t-test for Equality of Means

Sig. (2-
F Sig. t df tailed)

Q7_8_MF_8 Equal .039 .844 .250 231 .803

variances
assumed

Equal .243 29.62 .810

variances 5
not
assumed

Q7_9_MF_9 Equal 3.781 .053 3.308 231 .001

variances
assumed

Equal 4.532 38.49 .000

variances 8
not
assumed

Q7_10_MF_ Equal 1.280 .259 -2.755 231 .006

9 variances
assumed

Equal -2.571 29.04 .016

variances 9
not
assumed
Q7_11_MF_ Equal 1.474 .226 1.097 231 .274
11 variances
assumed

Equal 1.045 29.33 .305

variances 7
not
assumed

Q7_12_MF_ Equal 1.065 .303 1.670 231 .096

12 variances
assumed

Equal 2.003 33.92 .053

variances 2
not
assumed

Independent Samples Test

t-test for Equality of Means

95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Mean Std. Error
Difference Difference Lower Upper

Q7_8_MF_8 Equal .064 .255 -.438 .565

variances
assumed

Equal .064 .262 -.472 .599

variances
 not assumed

Q7_9_MF_9 Equal .83462 .25232 .33746 1.33177

variances
assumed

Equal .83462 .18417 .46194 1.20729

variances
not assumed

Q7_10_MF_9 Equal -.709 .257 -1.216 -.202

variances
assumed

Equal -.709 .276 -1.273 -.145

variances
not assumed

Q7_11_MF_1 Equal .267 .244 -.213 .747

1 variances
assumed

Equal .267 .256 -.255 .790

variances
not assumed

Q7_12_MF_1 Equal .47365 .28370 -.08531 1.03262

2 variances
assumed

Equal .47365 .23647 -.00694 .95425

variances
not assumed
 RQ5: What preferred communication channels should be utilized when
communicating with key publics?

Group Statistics
Std. Std. Error
Q1.0_RvsS N Mean Deviation Mean

Q8_CC_1 I am member of 25 4.52 2.044 .409

the harrisonburg
community

I am a student 208 3.00 2.143 .149

attending an
educational
institution in the
area

Q8_2CC_2 I am member of 25 1.80 1.118 .224

the harrisonburg
community
 I am a student 208 2.78 1.806 .125
attending an
educational
institution in the
area

Q8_3CC_3 I am member of 25 3.16 2.173 .435

the harrisonburg
community

I am a student 208 1.53 1.270 .088

attending an
educational
institution in the
area

Q8_4CC_4 I am member of 25 3.04 1.399 .280

the harrisonburg
community

I am a student 208 2.67 1.407 .098

attending an
educational
institution in the
area

Q8_5CC_5 I am member of 25 3.76 2.241 .448

the harrisonburg
community

I am a student 208 1.31 1.032 .072

attending an
educational
institution in the
 area

Q8_6CC_6 I am member of 25 4.20 1.633 .327

the harrisonburg
community

I am a student 208 4.35 1.499 .104

attending an
educational
institution in the
area

Q8_7CC_7 I am member of 25 4.64 1.705 .341

the harrisonburg
community

I am a student 208 3.97 1.751 .121

attending an
educational
institution in the
area

Q8_8CC_8 I am member of 25 3.68 1.701 .340

the harrisonburg
community

I am a student 208 4.42 1.412 .098

attending an
educational
institution in the
area
Q8_9CC_9 I am member of 25 4.04 1.513 .303
the harrisonburg
community

I am a student 208 4.76 1.400 .097

attending an
educational
institution in the
area

Q8_10CC_10 I am member of 25 4.20 1.683 .337

the harrisonburg
community

I am a student 208 5.32 1.149 .080

attending an
educational
institution in the
area

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for
Equality of
Variances t-test for Equality of Means

Sig. (2-
F Sig. t df tailed)
Q8_CC_1 Equal 1.482 .225 3.355 231 .001
variances
assumed

Equal 3.484 30.70 .002

variances 3
not assumed

Q8_2CC_2 Equal 13.508 .000 -2.659 231 .008

variances
assumed

Equal -3.838 40.95 .000

variances 0
not assumed

Q8_3CC_3 Equal 31.111 .000 5.522 231 .000

variances
assumed

Equal 3.667 26.00 .001

variances 5
not assumed

Q8_4CC_4 Equal .219 .640 1.233 231 .219

variances
assumed

Equal 1.238 30.14 .225

variances 0
not assumed

Q8_5CC_5 Equal 72.374 .000 9.537 231 .000

variances
assumed
 Equal 5.402 25.23 .000
variances 6
not assumed

Q8_6CC_6 Equal .721 .397 -.471 231 .638

variances
assumed

Equal -.440 29.07 .663

variances 6
not assumed

Q8_7CC_7 Equal .301 .584 1.822 231 .070

variances
assumed

Equal 1.861 30.41 .072

variances 6
not assumed

Q8_8CC_8 Equal 3.115 .079 -2.430 231 .016

variances
assumed

Equal -2.099 28.118 .045

variances
not assumed

Q8_9CC_9 Equal 1.559 .213 -2.424 231 .016

variances
assumed

Equal -2.279 29.15 .030

variances 3
not assumed
Q8_10CC_ Equal 13.644 .000 -4.344 231 .000
10 variances
assumed

Equal -3.230 26.75 .003

variances 1
not assumed

Independent Samples Test

t-test for Equality of Means

95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Mean Std. Error
Difference Difference Lower Upper

Q8_CC_1 Equal 1.515 .452 .625 2.405

variances
assumed

Equal 1.515 .435 .628 2.403

variances not
assumed

Q8_2CC_2 Equal -.984 .370 -1.712 -.255

variances
assumed

Equal -.984 .256 -1.501 -.466

variances not
assumed
Q8_3CC_3 Equal 1.626 .294 1.046 2.207
variances
assumed

Equal 1.626 .443 .715 2.538

variances not
assumed

Q8_4CC_4 Equal .367 .298 -.220 .953

variances
assumed

Equal .367 .296 -.238 .972

variances not
assumed

Q8_5CC_5 Equal 2.452 .257 1.946 2.959

variances
assumed

Equal 2.452 .454 1.518 3.387

variances not
assumed

Q8_6CC_6 Equal -.151 .320 -.782 .480

variances
assumed

Equal -.151 .343 -.852 .550

variances not
assumed

Q8_7CC_7 Equal .674 .370 -.055 1.402

variances
assumed
 Equal .674 .362 -.065 1.412
variances not
assumed

Q8_8CC_8 Equal -.743 .306 -1.346 -.140

variances
assumed

Equal -.743 .354 -1.468 -.018

variances not
assumed

Q8_9CC_9 Equal -.724 .299 -1.313 -.136

variances
assumed

Equal -.724 .318 -1.374 -.075

variances not
assumed

Q8_10CC_1 Equal -1.117 .257 -1.624 -.611

0 variances
assumed

Equal -1.117 .346 -1.827 -.407

variances not
assumed