Running head: Second Chance Aasheim, Ashley, Aston, Bonilla, Carson 1

Second Chance Animal Sanctuary:

A Central Oklahoma Rescue Mission For Over 24 Years

Carly Aasheim, Blair Ashley, Andrew Aston, Elizabeth Bonilla, Haley Carson
Team 1

The University of Oklahoma

Running head: Second Chance Aasheim, Ashley, Aston, Bonilla, Carson 2

Demographics and Characteristics + Procedure

During the timeframe of November 6th, 2018 - November 14th, 2018, the research team
distributed a 21 question survey, hosted online by Qualtrics Software System, which aimed to
gauge the awareness, attitudes, and actions of the Second Chance Animal Sanctuary key publics.
A non-random sampling method was used to select an appropriate sampling frame for the
survey. The frame included a diverse mix of college students and potentially adopting families
which are considered Second Chance’s two key publics for the purpose of this campaign. During
this time frame, the survey gathered a total of 155 recorded respondents. Out of those 155
respondents, 77.9% (120 participants) were female and 20.8% (32 participants) were male. Two
respondents (1.3% of the sample) preferred not to answer. In relation the the sample’s ages, 53
people (33.5% of respondents) were between the ages of 18-24, 17.4% (27 people) were 25-34,
11.6% (18 people) were 35-44, 16.1% (25 people) were 45-54, 21.35% (31 people) were 55+,
and .65% (1 person) preferred not to answer.
Out of the 155 recorded responses 132 respondents (85.7%) identified as White, 6
respondents (3.9%) identified as Hispanic, 6 respondents (3.9%) identified as Native Indian, 5
respondents (3.2%) identified as Asian, 2 respondents (1.3%) identified as Black, 2 respondents
(1.3%) identified as other, and 1 respondent (.6%) preferred not to say. Regarding marital status
there were 66 respondents (42.9%) who had never been married, 67 respondents (43.5%) who
had been married, 13 respondents (8.4%) who were divorced, 3 respondents (1.9%) who were
widowed, 2 respondents (1.2%) who were separated, and 3 respondents (1.9%) who preferred
not to answer.
Concerning educational background, no respondents answered that they had received less
than a high school degree, 33.8% (52 respondents) said they had some college but no degree,
24.0% (37 respondents) said they had a Bachelor’s Degree, 18.2% (28 respondents) said they
had a Professional Degree, 7.8% (12 respondents) said they were high school graduates, 7.8%
(12 respondents) said they earned a 2-year Associate's Degree, 5.2% (8 respondents) said they
had earned a Doctoral Degree, 1.9% (3 respondents) chose other, and 1.3% (2 respondents)
preferred not to say. When it came to housing accommodations, 114 respondents (73.5%)
answered that they lived in a house, 30 respondents (19.4%) said they lived in an apartment, 5
respondents (3.2%) said they lived in a townhouse, 2 respondents (1.3%) said they lived in a
dorm, 3 respondents (1.9%) chose other, and 1 respondent (.6%) preferred not to answer.
When evaluating income 14.9% (23 respondents) said they earned less than $10,000 a
year, 2.6% (4 respondents) earned between $10,000-$19,999, 5.2% (8 respondents) earned
$20,000-$29,999, 4.5% (7 respondents) earned $30,000-$39,999, 7.1% (11 respondents) earned
$40,000-$49,999, 5.2% (8 respondents) earned $50,000-$59,999, 7.8% (12 respondents) earned
$60,000-$69,999, 6.5% (10 respondents) earned $70,000-$79,999, 3.9% (6 respondents) earned
$80,000-$89,999, 5.8% (9 respondents) earned $90,000-$99,999, 13.6% (21 respondents) earned
$100,000-$149,999, 5.8% (9 respondents) earned $150,000 or more, 1.3% (2 respondents) chose
other, and 15.6% (24 respondents) preferred not to say.
Running head: Second Chance Aasheim, Ashley, Aston, Bonilla, Carson 3

In order to evaluate the data collected from the survey, the research team conducted the
statistical tests of Chi-Square and Correlation through the SPSS software. The Chi-Square test
was used in order to assess the relationship between the key publics’ awareness and attitudes
currently and their willingness to either donate, foster, adopt, or volunteer to Second Chance in
the future. The Correlation statistics test was run in order to determine a relationship between the
key publics’ past actions of donating behaviors to any non-profit organizations and their
potential ​donations to Second Chance specifically.

Knowledge of Awareness
During the research campaign, the team posed the following research question in order to
collect data to gauge “to what extent is the key public aware of the Second Chance
Organization?” A question within the survey asked respondents their level of familiarity with
Second Chance Animal Sanctuary by ordinal measurements of never heard of it, heard of it,
visited social channels/website, visited the shelter, or adopted and donated. According to the
gathered responses, 131 of 155 participants (84.5%) were aware of the shelter (which included
every category but never heard of it). Of those aware, 88 of 155 respondents (56.78%) had
actually participated in actions towards the shelter such as visiting the shelter, donating, or
adopting.
In addition to Second Chance, the group also collected data of on the level of familiarity
with Second Chance’s competitor through categories such as never heard of the shelter, heard of
it, visited social channels/website/email, visiting the shelter, and adopting or donating. It was
discovered that 110 of 155 (71%) respondents were aware of Norman Animal Welfare Center. In
contrast, 45 of 155 (29%) of respondents had never heard of Norman Animal Welfare Center
while only 24 of 155 (15.5%) respondents had never heard of Second Chance. It appears the
central Oklahoma families and college students who participated in the survey were more aware
of Second Chance than Norman Animal Welfare Center either due to past actions of adoptions or
donations to Second Chance.

Perception/Attitudes
To determine people’s perceptions and attitudes of Second Chance Animal Sanctuary, the
research team sent out an online survey, which received a reach of 155 participants. The survey
included a mix of 21 questions, with a majority of them asking for people’s perceptions and
opinions of animal adoption in general as well as a set of five questions asking their attitudes
towards Second Chance in particular. All of the questions in the survey aimed to answer or help
provide knowledge for the research question of “what kind of attitude does the key public have
towards the Second Chance Animal Shelter?” In order to evaluate the entire scope of the
competition in the area, there was a similar question in the survey that asked participants about
their perception on one of Second Chance’s competitors: Norman Animal Welfare Center. This
aided in discovering potential sentiments about the competition and discovering the level of
Running head: Second Chance Aasheim, Ashley, Aston, Bonilla, Carson 4

awareness and the attitudes of the target audience about shelters in the Norman/OKC area in
general. The research team then analyzed the data using the SPSS statistical test analysis to
determine the overall perceptions and attitudes that the survey sample had towards the two
Norman shelters and about animal shelters in the central Oklahoma area.
In order to find out this information, the team first asked participants to answer if their
sentiments were positive or negative about the two shelters. In reference to Norman Animal
Welfare Center, there were 135 (97.1%) positive respondents and there were 4 negative (2.9%)
respondents. When asked about Second Chance, 138 (99.3%) participants responded positive and
1 (.7%) negative. The next question asked about whether the participants viewed the shelters as
useful or useless. The data showed that 110 (92.4%) participants responded that Norman Animal
Welfare is useful, while only 9 (7.6%) said the shelter is useless, leaving them with a 93.1%
usefulness rating. In regards to Second Chance, 122 people (96.1%) rated them useful and 5
(3.9%) rate them useless. The team then posed another question asking participants to choose if
the shelters are impressive or unimpressive. For Norman Animal Welfare, 89 participants
(81.7%) choose impressive while 20 participants (18.3%) selected unimpressive. In contrast,
Second Chance was considered more impressive, 113 respondents (90.4%) claiming Second
Chance to be impressive while 12 respondents (9.6%) rated the shelter unimpressive. Later, a
similar question asked if the shelters were considered far above standards or far below standards.
For Norman Animal Welfare, 110 respondents (91.7%) classified the shelter as far above
standards while 10 respondents (8.3%) classified the shelter as far below standards. Additionally,
survey participants were asked if they had favorable or unfavorable opinions towards each
shelter. Norman Animal Welfare received 129 (92.8%) favorable responses and 10 (7.2%)
unfavorable. In regards to Second Chance, 135 (96.4%) respondents selected favorable while
with 5 (3.6%) participants selected unfavorable for the shelter. Throughout all of these
sentiments measured for both shelters, Second Chance Animal Sanctuary appeared to resonate
more with the target audiences of college students and central Oklahoman families looking to
adopt, foster, volunteer, or donate when compared to their competitor, Norman Animal Welfare
Center.
Overall, this data helped the research team gain insight on people’s perceptions of Second
Chance Animal Sanctuary currently and also review a competitor within the same area who is
targeting similar demographics. From all the data collected, there was minimally observed
negative remarks in regards to both shelters. This demonstrates to the research team that people
see both shelters as strong contributors to the animal welfare community. As Second Chance
earned a majority of high marks in regards to the sample’s perspective and attitudes, this
demonstrates the shelter is impacting their audience. However, there is still room for
improvement within the shelter, as displayed by some of the public’s expressed negative
sentiments and attitudes during the survey. This data allows Second Chance to target their
messages and outputs more in order to improve the negative perceptions of their target audiences
of families and college students.
Running head: Second Chance Aasheim, Ashley, Aston, Bonilla, Carson 5

Desired Behavior
In order to evaluate the target audience’s potential actions they might be willing to
participate in to benefit Second Chance, the research question of “what is the relationship
between their awareness and their intention to a) donate, b) foster c) volunteer and d) adopting
to/from Second Chance?” was thought about when designing the behavior and action portion of
the survey. The team analyzed the likelihood of the target audience completing Second Chance’s
expressed desired behaviors primarily through an online survey. The survey was completed by
155 participants and included questions about the participants’ likelihood of completing certain
action-oriented behaviors. These behaviors included actions such as fostering an animal from
Second Chance, donating items or money to the shelter, volunteering at Second Chance, and
adopting an animal from Second Chance. In addition, the survey gauged the potential correlation
between the probability of these behaviors and the participant’s current attitudes/perceptions of
Second Chance. In order to recognize this relationship between awareness and possible/probable
actions from their participants in the survey, the research team conducted an SPSS statistical
analysis test, selecting the Pearson Chi-Square Test. The team ran this test to determine which
attitudes were strongly relational to the participants’ willingness to complete the desired
behaviors as a result of their awareness. The team hypothesized that participants who already had
generally positive sentiments or mentalities about Second Chance, or an animal shelter in
general, would be more likely to participate in the desired behaviors.
To gain a basic understanding of the target audience’s general past behaviors in relation
to non-profit organizations, the survey asked the participant how often they donate to a
non-profit organization. In order to tie this fundamental behavioral question to Second Chance
specifically, a correlational test was conducted through SPSS. The test demonstrated a weak
(.352*), positive (+), and significant (p = .000) relationship between the past donation habits to
not-for-profit organizations and potential donations to Second Chance Animal Sanctuary.
To hopefully learn more insight on the hypothesized relationship, the survey initially
asked whether participants had an overall positive or negative view of Second Chance, and then
whether or not they would consider fostering, volunteering, or adopting from the shelter. While
there was no significant notion between a positive view of Second Chance and a willingness to
foster ( x2 (2) = 2.249, p = .325) or volunteer ( x2 (2) = 2.964, p =.227), there was a strong
correlation between a positive view of Second Chance and a willingness to adopt from Second
Chance. The statistical analysis concluded that there was a significant relationship ( x2 (2) =
14.44, p = .001) between these two variables, and 70.8% (97 of 138 responses) of people said
they overall felt positive about Second Chance. From this data, the participants also stated they
would be willing to adopt a pet from the shelter as shown within the significant number above.
The survey then asked participants if they felt that Second Chance was a useful or a
useless organization, which was analyzed along with their answers about whether they would
consider fostering, volunteering or adopting from the shelter. In this analysis, there was a
significant relationship between viewing Second Chance as useful and willingness to foster
Running head: Second Chance Aasheim, Ashley, Aston, Bonilla, Carson 6

animals ( x2 (2) = 6.69, p = .053), a willingness to volunteer ( x2 (2) = 9.83, p = .007), and a
willingness to adopt ( x2 (2) = 32.42, p = .00). For people who said Second Chance was useful,
27% (33 of 127 respondents) said yes and 45.9% (56 of 127 respondents) said maybe when
asked if they would be willing to foster for Second Chance. In reference to volunteering, 41.3%
(50 of 126 respondents) said yes and 38% (46 of 126 respondents) said maybe when asked if
they would be willing to volunteer with Second Chance. The strongest significance was between
the perception of usefulness and willingness to adopt from Second Chance, with 76% (92 of 126)
of participants who found Second Chance useful. This is affirmed by selecting a definitive yes
when asked if they would be willing to adopt an animal from the shelter as shown within the
data.
Then, the survey asked participants if they found Second Chance impressive or
unimpressive, which was again analyzed in relation to their willingness to foster, volunteer and
adopt. In this analysis, there was no significant relationship between finding Second Chance
impressive/unimpressive and willingness to foster ( x2 (2) = 1.87, p = .393) or volunteer ( x2 (2)
= 3.135, p = .209), but there was a significant relationship between finding Second Chance
impressive and willingness to adopt ( x2 (2) = 10.02, p = .007). In this analysis, 76.8% (86 of
124) of participants who found Second Chance impressive said yes that they would be willing to
adopt an animal from the shelter as demonstrated by the data.
The team then analyzed the willingness to complete desired behaviors and its correlation
to whether participants found Second Chance ‘far above standards’ or ‘far below standards’. In
this instance, there was once again no significant relationship between people’s perception that
Second Chance is far above standard and their willingness to foster ( x2 (2) = 4.413, p = .127) or
volunteer ( x2 (2) = 5.942, p = .051) at the shelter. There was, however, a significant relationship
between the attitude that Second Chance is far above standards and the willingness to adopt a pet
from the shelter ( x2 (2) = 33.34, p = .000), with 73.6% (89 of 125) of participants who said they
found Second Chance far above standards also selecting yes when asked if they would consider
adopting from Second Chance as demonstrated by the significant number.
Finally, the team analyzed participants willingness to complete the desired behaviors
compared with their answers on whether they found Second Chance favorable or unfavorable. In
this analysis, there was no significant relationship between finding Second Chance favorable (
x2 (2) = 5.858, p = .054) and willingness to foster from Second Chance. In contrast, there was a
significant relationship between finding Second Chance favorable and willingness to volunteer (
x2 (2) = 8.21, p = .017) and willingness to adopt ( x2 (2) = 33.339, p = .000). For participants
who viewed Second Chance as favorable, 39.6% (53 of 139) said yes and 36.6% (49 of 139) said
maybe when asked if they would be willing to volunteer at Second Chance. In relation to
adoptions, 75.4% (101 of 139) of people who viewed Second Chance as favorable said a
Running head: Second Chance Aasheim, Ashley, Aston, Bonilla, Carson 7

definitive yes when asked if they would consider adopting a pet from the shelter as demonstrated
in the data above.
In another series of gauging questions, the survey inquired if people would be potentially
be inclined more to foster, adopt, or volunteer for the shelter if they currently owned a cat or dog.
Again, a Chi-Square test was conducted in order to evaluate the result and analyze the data. In
reference to fostering, there was a significant relationship between fostering and owning a cat or
dog ( x2 (2) = 20.079, p = .003). From the data, 37 participants who owned both a cat and a dog
were most likely to participate in volunteering as they selected yes 11 of 44 (25%) or maybe 26
of 44 (59.1%) when compared to other categories (dog, cat, or no animals). In regards to
volunteering, there was no significant relationship between owning a cat or dog and volunteering
for a shelter ( x2 (2) = 4.651, p = .589). In contrast, there was a significant relationship between
owning a cat or dog and potentially adopting from Second Chance ( x2 (2) = 13,494, p = .036).
From these owners, the most likely to adopt from Second Chance would be dog owners, with 47
of 64 dog owners (73.4%) selected yes and 13 of 64 dog owners (20.3%) selecting maybe when
compared to other categories (cat, both, or none).
Overall, this analysis both proves and disproves the hypothesis. In one aspect, positive
attitudes about Second Chance have a significant relationship on a willingness to adopt across
the board. For willingness to volunteer, however, it seemed most important that the target
audience perceives Second Chance as both favorable and useful. For willingness to foster, the
attitude that seemed to most influence the desired behavior was the perception of Second Chance
as a useful organization.

Media Use
In order to find the most effective way to reach the target audience, the research team
posed survey questions aimed at identifying the target audience’s media consumption habits. The
identified categories of media in the survey included print, television, digital (websites and
email), and social media channels. The survey asked respondents how often they saw messages
from animal advocacy organizations on each type of platform using a five-point Likert scale
ranging from never to very often. Although the research team was not able to test statistically
significant differences between respondents’ use of these channels after gathering data, the
research team used SPSS statistical analysis to find patterns in the responses that would inform
the team on how best to reach the target audience. The patterns that the research team discovered
suggests that respondents are more likely to receive animal advocacy information via social
media and digital channels over print and television channels. Specifically, 66.5% of respondents
reported that they seldom or never see animal advocacy messages in print, with an additional
21.9% seeing such messages only occasionally. Similarly, 46.5% of respondents reported that
they seldom or never see animal advocacy messages on television, with an additional 31.8%
viewing such messages only occasionally. On the other hand, 63.9% of respondents report seeing
Running head: Second Chance Aasheim, Ashley, Aston, Bonilla, Carson 8

animal advocacy messages on digital platforms occasionally, often, or very often. In addition,
74.7% of respondents report seeing animal advocacy messages on social media platforms
occasionally, often, or very often.
In additionally listed questions, the research team sought to gather data specifically about
respondents’ social media usage and preferences of channels. Again, using a five-point Likert
scale ranging from never to very often, the research team asked respondents how often they used
Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. Eighty-seven percent of respondents use Facebook
occasionally, often, or very often. Twenty-eight percent use Twitter occasionally, often, or very
often. Finally, 56 percent use Instagram occasionally, often, or very often. While Second Chance
is currently only using Facebook (which has a strong market as displayed by the data), the shelter
could also experience growth in viewership if they were to seek their audience out on Instagram
as well.
In addition to preferred message outlets and their social media habits, the research team
also asked respondents to rate how likely they would be to follow an animal shelter on each
social media platform. Seventy-nine percent of respondents reported that they were likely to
follow an animal shelter on Facebook occasionally, often, or very often. Seventeen percent
reported that they were likely to follow an animal shelter on Twitter occasionally, often, or very
often. Finally, 47 percent reported that they were likely to follow an animal shelter on Instagram
occasionally, often, or very often.
In relation to their target audience’s media habits, the survey analysis discovered that
5.8% of respondents’ maximum level of familiarity with Second Chance Animal Sanctuary was
through social media channels, the shelter’s website, or email. This familiarity level was in
comparison with levels of familiarity that ranged from having never heard of the shelter to
having visited or donated to or adopted from the shelter. In contrast, Norman Animal Welfare
had a higher level of familiarity through social channels, their website, and their email as 17 of
155 respondents (11%) were familiar with the shelter through the online space. Considering
Second Chance’s public was less familiar with Second Chance through the digital sphere, this
demonstrates their competitor could potentially be reaching the intended target of Second
Chance online through their socials/website/or email outreach. This lack of reach online could
hinder Second Chance’s impact on their key publics who are utilizing this platform. With the the
internet being a commonplace for shared information, there is room for improvement in
implementing communication messages online as noted by the data.

Communication/Message Analysis Results

In order to analyze the previous messaging produced by Second Chance at the start of the
campaign, the research team conducted a content analysis of the shelter’s Facebook page. The
posts that were analyzed were pulled from September 16 - September 27, 2018, so that the
researchers could gain a comprehensive understanding of the messaging strategy the company
Running head: Second Chance Aasheim, Ashley, Aston, Bonilla, Carson 9

was already utilizing. In addition, the content analysis also conveyed there was room for the
potential of messaging on other platforms in order to reach these key publics..
Upon completion of the content analysis of 25 postings from Second Chance’s Facebook
page that ranged from different messaging types of text, text + graphics, events, and more, the
analysis demonstrated that audience of this outreach messaging (which was not the target
audience but consisted of mostly older female women outside of the scope of the family target
audience) preferred a text plus photo posting. This type of content average 50+ reactions and
approximately 15 shares per post within the specified timeframe. Additionally, of the 66
observed comments, 89% of these comments were females with only 11% of comments being
men. However, this analysis is not representative of the intended audience of the
communications campaign which is central Oklahoma families (from areas such as Norman,
Tuttle, Edmond, Oklahoma City, etc.) and Norman college students (from the University of
Oklahoma, University of Central Oklahoma, etc.) due to their potential interest in adoptions,
fostering, volunteering, and donating to shelters.
In order to monitor the specified audience of the campaign, survey questions aimed at
gauging the targeted audience, the survey asked general questions concerning which mediums
the target publics consume their messaging from such as print, social channels, digital, or
television. Using SPSS statistical analysis, the research team noted that of the 155 respondents,
137 participants, or 88.4% of respondents (ranging from never to occasionally) claimed they will
not read or see their animal advocacy organization messaging from print communication (such as
newspaper, advertising, etc.). Additionally, 131 of 155 respondents, or 84.5% of participants,
(ranging from never to occasionally) claimed they will not read or see their animal advocacy
organization messaging from television communication efforts. In contrast, 99 of 155
respondents, or 63.9% of participants (ranging from occasionally to very often) will read or see
their animal advocacy organization messaging from digital (email and website) communication.
Furthermore, 115 of 154 respondents, or 74.2% of participants, (ranging from occasionally to
very often) will​ ​read or see their animal advocacy organization messaging from social media
platforms. This pattern within the given data was observed through the SPSS program but is not
statistically proven as there is no test to be conducted for this type of relationship. However,
these descriptive statistics allowed the research team to still accurately depict the typical usage or
consumption of communication messaging in their normal behavioral actions. This will further
provide insight on which platform most accurately reaches the target audiences and the
designated samples. Overall, through this observation, the survey sample (which correlates to the
team’s target audience of college students and potential adopting families) suggests that this
population prefers to consume messaging outputs through online platforms (as noted by digital
and their strong preference) and social channels (as noted again by their strong preference when
compared to television and print results from the survey).