Analysis of January-February 2005 PLENTY Member Survey

 

Presented to the NCPlenty, Inc. Board of Trustees

May 2005

 

Matthew Kalb

Jonathan Lepofsky

 

Introduction

 

This report summarizes findings from a survey of registered PLENTY users conducted in January and February 2005.  The survey was distributed by mail to the entire membership of NCPlenty, Inc.  Only those registered as members with the organization received a survey.  173 surveys were sent out.  68 surveys were returned for a response rate of 39.3%.   The purpose of this survey was twofold.  First, the Board of Trustees (BoT) of NCPlenty, Inc. wanted to identify who is in the PLENTY community economy and gauge how the PLENTY circulates amongst this group of people.  Second, the BoT wanted to generate some baseline information about PLENTY use in order to effectively plan future projects and activities, such as LOOPS (Local Occurrences of Organized PLENTY Spending—formal microcircuits of PLENTY circulation among the membership), in order to enhance the circulation of PLENTYs.

 

Research such as this survey is critical to the mission of NCPlenty.  We use this information to make quantitative and qualitative assessments regarding the current state of the PLENTY and the activities of NCPlenty.  Aside from evaluating past progress, this helps clarify and focus our planning and action going forward. 

 

This particular survey represents the third survey of PLENTY users since the introduction of PLENTYs in 2002.  The first survey was also a mail-based survey and was completed in February 2003.  Out of 117 surveys distributed, 64 were returned for a response rate of 54.7%.  The second survey was a phone survey conducted between September and November of 2003 (as part of the Disbursement Task Force, see the report at http://www.ncplenty.org/dtf/abstract.html).  46 respondents participated in the second survey for a 27.5% response rate (which was supplemented by in-depth, key informant interviews with representatives from 8 additional business-members).  Though some of the same questions appear on all three surveys, none of the surveys were designed to provide a seamless integration of data across the three surveys over the two year period.  This coupled with the varying response rates and the changes within the universe of respondents (some people have participated in all three surveys and their same responses may be contained within all three, others have participated in just one or two) sets some of the limits as to what this information can reveal about the PLENTY community economy.  Therefore, the three surveys should be treated as three snapshots in time over the course of the development of the PLENTY complementary currency and should not be analyzed as a congruent series of data that can adequately reflect changes within the PLENTY community economy.  However, some comparison is valid and useful for administrative purposes.  This most recent survey can be used as the most accurate and up-to-date description of the PLENTY community economy and includes some information that has been collected for the first time by the BoT (such as demographic data).

 

Demographics

 

Figure 1: Racial Self-Identity

 

NCPlenty, Inc.’s membership is overwhelmingly self-defined as a racially white population.  91.2% of all respondents, and 96.9% of those respondents who answered this particular question, classified themselves as white.  One person self-identified as Chinese.  This racial and ethnic homogeneity is in stark contrast to the overall demographics of the region within which the PLENTY circulates.  Of course, it must be acknowledged that the PLENTY community economy consists of under two hundred people, while the regional population is 521,670.^[1] Still, it is striking that the group of PLENTY users is largely white when whites make up just 66.7% of this regional population (a number that drops to 51% when taking Durham County alone and wavers around 75% in the other three regional counties).  This is particularly interesting because of the dynamics within the regional population over the last decade.  Carrboro, for example, has seen a 936% increase in the Hispanic population between 1990 and 2000 and North Carolina has one of the fastest growing Hispanic populations in the nation.^[2] The most recent survey of PLENTY users does not find any evidence of this diverse regional population.^[3]  Overall, the membership of NCPlenty, Inc. overwhelmingly self-identifies as white to such a degree that it should be considered an important factor in how the “community” of the PLENTY community economy has been structured.  The BoT should acknowledge this fact when considering future activities and outreach plans.^[4]

 

Figure 2: Annual Household Income

 

In general, NCPlenty, Inc.’s membership is relatively wealthy when compared to the region and to North Carolina as a whole.  Within the PLENTY network household incomes are varied, with the percentage making $25,000 or less (20.0%) fairly comparable to the percentage making $75,000 or more (23.1%).  When compared with regional demographics, the PLENTY community economy contains households that are relatively wealthy as measured in dollar income on 1999 dollars.^[5] While 16% of the regional population has an annual household income of under $15,000, only 4% of PLENTY users have such a low dollar income.  Though the 4-county region within which PLENTYs primarily circulate maintains both a higher median household income and a higher per capita income when compared to all 100 North Carolina counties, there are significant portions of the regional population living below the poverty line (12.6%) and it does not appear that PLENTYs reach this population as fully as possible.  At the other end of the income spectrum, 61.5% of NCPlenty, Inc. members surveyed live in households with an annual household income above $50,000.  This is much higher than the regional count of 41.9% of households with an annual income over $50,000.  North Carolina’s median household income in 2003 (adjusted for inflation) was $38,234, ranking the state 41^st out of the 50 states plus the District of Columbia.  This data shows that the members of NCPlenty, Inc. are relatively wealthy in terms of dollar income when compared to the regional and state population.  As an economic development tool, the PLENTY can be wielded more effectively to reach lower-income people.  Currently the PLENTY appears to circulate financial wealth among those who already have high levels of access to financial wealth.

 

Figure 3: Home Ownership and Formal Education Level

 

Further reinforcing this point, home ownership, which is often a factor in measuring wealth and standard of living, stands at 82.1% among registered PLENTY users, notably higher than regional figures.  The respondent base is also highly educated, with nearly half holding a graduate degree and 89.8% holding, at minimum, a bachelor’s degree.  While Durham County and Orange County maintain a population with some of highest levels of educational attainment in the state, it is important to note that the state percentage of the population with a college education or more is only 22.5%.  Equivalent levels in Alamance, Chatham, Durham, and Orange Counties are 19.2%, 27.6%, 40.1%, and 51.5% respectively.  Such educational attainment levels contribute to higher incomes as well as access to higher quality resources.  The BoT should consider this fact when establishing economic development and social justice goals for the organization.  These data reinforce the idea held by many registered PLENTY participants themselves: that the PLENTY community economy is constructed by and for a privileged group within central North Carolina region.^[6]

 

Figure 4: County of Residence and Length of Residency

 

Orange County is home for the majority (60.3%) of respondents, but significant numbers also reside in Chatham (20.6%) and Durham (16.2%) Counties.  A third of respondents have lived in the region for more than 15 years, but there are also 21.2% who have been in the region for 5 or fewer years.  That nearly a quarter of those surveyed has lived in the area for such a short tenure is not surprising given the high number of nationally recognized universities as well as Research Triangle Park within the region, both which lend to a mobile and dynamic regional population.  It is notable, however, because of the community-building goals that NCPlenty, Inc. has set forth and the ways in which the use of the PLENTY complementary currency represents a commitment to support a place-based, local economy.  The BoT and other members of the PLENTY community economy may want to think strategically as to how the PLENTY can both support the local while accounting for users’ personal geographies that can very much be translocal.^[7]

 

Overall, the “community” of the PLENTY community economy is predominantly white, wealthy, and highly educated and represents only a select (and some might claim elite) strata of the regional population.  While these descriptive statistics have significant limitations when trying to understand how individuals within the PLENTY community economy actually live out these modes of identity in their day-to-day lives (and even how much it is possible to derive a “community” from such apparent homogeneity), it should be a challenge to the BoT to diversify the PLENTY users in order to have a wider social and economic impact in the region and not simply circulate wealth (and the power and privilege it brings) among those who already have a high degree of access.  Indeed, if the PLENTY community economy remains structured in this way, then it seems as if this complementary currency will have an opposite effect than some of its original intentions vis-à-vis redistributing wealth; rather than distribute financial wealth more widely than dollars, the PLENTYs takes financial wealth out of the dollar’s wider space economy and circulates that capital among a select group of participants.  A less generous interpretation of the situation could point to the ways in which this select group is protecting its wealth and social status through the PLENTY, but such an interpretation would give too much credence to the financial viability of the PLENTY than is possible at this juncture, a point that is addressed in the next section. 

 

Use of the PLENTY

 

This survey reflects two significant issues that had been raised by the previous two surveys of the PLENTY membership: first, that there is quite modest circulation of PLENTY notes, and second, that PLENTYs are spent centrally rather than widely.  This is troubling for a community economic development initiative that relies upon the physical distribution of PLENTY notes among a wide spectrum of the regional population in order to realize its goals and create positive outcomes.

 

Figure 5: PLENTYs Accepted and PLENTYs Spent (ranges combined from survey ranges for purposes of graph)

PLENTYs on hand	Total		PLENTYs accepted	Total		PLENTYs spent	Total
None	29		None	41		None	4
0.25-2P	9		0.25-2P	5		0.25-2P	2
2.25-5P	9		2.25-5P	3		2.25-5P	16
5.25-10P	9		5.25-10P	6		5.25-10P	11
10.25-25P	5		10.25-25P	5		10.25-25P	15
25.25-50P	2		25.25-50P	3		25.25-50P	13
50.25-100P	1		50.25-100P	2		50.25-100P	3
100.25-150P	2		100.25-150P	0		100.25-150P	0
150.25-200P	0		150.25-200P	0		150.25-200P	2
200.25-250P	0		200.25-250P	0		200.25-250P	0
over 250P	0		over 250P	2		over 250P	1

Figure 6: PLENTYs On Hand, PLENTYs Accepted, and PLENTYs Spent (ranges exactly match survey)

 

Amt. spent à	None	0.25-5P	5.25-25P	25.25-100P	100.25-200P	Over 200P
Amt. accepted
None	7.50%*	19.40%	22.40%	11.90%	0	0
0.25-5P	0	3.00%	6.00%	3.00%	0	0
5.25-25P	0	3.00%	10.40%	3.00%	0	0
25.25-100P	0	0	0	6.00%	1.50%	0
100.25-200P	0	0	0	0	0	0
Over 250P	0	0	0	0	1.50%	1.50%

Figure 7: PLENTY Spending by PLENTY Acceptance

*For purposes of comparison, one respondent who indicated they had accepted no PLENTYs and did not indicate an amount spent was counted as “None” in both categories.

 

After more than two years of circulation, nearly two-thirds (61.2%) of respondents have never received a PLENTY through their business or wages, and nearly one-third (32.8%) have spent no more than their initial issuance of 5P.  These figures are much lower than where the BoT would like to see them; however, they do show positive movement from the initial survey in February 2003, which found 71.9% receiving no PLENTYs and 80.1% spending no more than the initial 5P disbursement.  A small but significant percentage (17.9%) has accepted more than $100 (10P) in PLENTYs, while the percentage who has spent more than this amount is 50.7%.  The plurality (43.9%) reported having no PLENTYs on hand, which suggests many are not seeking out PLENTYs through other means such as asking for change at member locations.  There were 15.2% of respondents who report having greater than 10P on hand, with a handful holding more than 50P ($500 US).

 

Because these numbers reflect a continued limit in the amount of PLENTYs circulated by the membership, perhaps more attention should be placed on why members seem not to be spending PLENTYs.  This survey offered respondents the opportunity to write additional comments and several people took this opportunity to share their thoughts. Overwhelmingly, survey respondents demonstrated the catch-22 of the PLENTY community economy: one’s desire to support the initiative mixed with a lack of trust that anyone else supports the initiative enough to accept PLENTYs for payment on goods and services one seeks to purchase.^[8] Survey respondents indicated a lack of trust that the PLENTY is a viable currency and several expressed frustration that no one had used PLENTYs with them.  As one anonymous respondent notes: “[The PLENTY is a] super idea, but we are having a hard time making use of PLENTYs. We aren't earning any so any we get will be in change and this doesn't happen much because we use credit cards (mainly for the record of purchases).”  Another person writes: “The PLENTY seems to have lost steam as of late.  It feels like the energy is waning.  Don't hear much about the PLENTY these days.  Board seems lackluster, communications with members seem to have slackened.  I'm losing confidence in the PLENTY.”  Another member states more bluntly: “PLENTYs don't work for me. :( .”

 

With which members have you spent PLENTYs?

Member	Number of times listed
Weaver Street Market	56 (85.3% of surveys)
Pittsboro General Store Café	15 (22.1% of surveys)
Skylight Exchange	8
Cat's Cradle	6
Balloons & Tunes	5
Blast, Inc.	5
Panzanella	4
Perry-winkle Farm	4
French Connections	3
Maple Spring Gardens	3
Paper Hand Puppet Intervention	3
Peregrine Farm	3

Figure 8: Members listed by respondents for question “With which members have you spent PLENTYs?” –partial list

Full listing appears in Compiled Survey Results for all Questions section

 

While PLENTYs have a limited circulation, when members do spend PLENTYs, they often spend them centrally rather than across the regional space of the PLENTY community economy.  On the plus side, the average member has spent PLENTYs with 2.4 members, up from February 2003 when the average member had spent PLENTYs with 1.2 other members.  However, for 85.3% of respondents, one of those members was Weaver Street Market, and for 39.7% of those respondents Weaver Street Market was the only member.  According to Weaver Street Market’s own financial data, at the end of March 2005, the cooperative held 7% of all circulating PLENTYs in its bank. Weaver Street Markets has averaged $500 a month in PLENTY transactions since first accepting PLENTYs in May 2003 and is by far the most significant member in the PLENTY community economy in terms of exchanges.  As with spending and accepting PLENTYs, the BoT would like to see broader interaction amongst NCPlenty, Inc. members.  We hope the BoT is able to develop activities that build on the positive growth in the two years between this survey and the last.

 

Figure 9: PLENTYs for Business Use

 

Aside from 6.2% of respondents, PLENTY spending is described as being for “minimal business use.”  This is in line with previous surveys that indicate that PLENTYs move between members for personal needs.  Yet the PLENTY is formally structured on a business-to-business model.  The Disbursement Task Force recommended changes in this structure to accommodate the ways in which people actual use PLENTYs and it seems as if these proposed changes are still necessary.  49.3% of respondents said the business registered through NCPlenty was a primary source of income, but based on other data, few members’ businesses derive a significant amount of income through PLENTYs.  It seems that the BoT could do more to encourage the informal economic practices that are supported by the PLENTY and help members supplement personal and household incomes beyond their primary sources of income.^[9]

 

Participation in NCPlenty Outside of PLENTY Use

 

Figure 10: Various Membership Participation Statistics

 

Three questions in the survey provide a measure of membership participation in NCPlenty in ways other than accepting and spending the PLENTY.  These asked whether a respondent had recruited other members to the PLENTY network, attended an NCPlenty-sponsored event, or utilized the NCPlenty website (which is home to an online Membership Directory, for example).  In all three areas, more than half of respondents had not participated, with 70.1% never recruiting another member, 58.8% never attending an NCPlenty event, and 56.3% never using the NCPlenty website.  Of those who did attend an event, only 17.9% gave it a rating lower than “Good,” which was the same percentage rating the event “Excellent.”  Similarly, only 12.9% of those who used the NCPlenty website and provided a rating rated it lower than “Good.”  This suggests that NCPlenty’s larger task is in raising membership awareness of such venues for participation since 82.1% of those attending an event and 84.3% of those who have used the website rate the experiences as “Good” or “Excellent.”  Interestingly enough, approximately 95% of NCPlenty members have email addresses registered as a preferred point of contact, which strongly suggests that close to that amount have access to the Internet.^[10]

 

The extent to which respondents did not utilize the NCPlenty, Inc. website may be particularly helpful in making future communications with members more effective, since NCPlenty, Inc. has historically placed a heavy reliance upon email and website publishing to inform members of events and developments.  However, it is interesting to note, in spite of the above statistic regarding website usage, that exactly 50% of respondents indicated they would be interested in trading with an online account, and another 14.5% expressed reserved interest.  Perhaps web-based technologies can be used more creatively to connect members to each other, encourage participation within the initiative, and exchange PLENTYs.

 

Recommendations

 

The most recent survey of PLENTY members when combined with previous surveys and related information indicates that the BoT can manage the PLENTY in different ways in order to achieve the goals set forth in the NCPlenty, Inc. mission statement.  We recommend the following steps be taken by the BoT:

 

• Diversify the “community” that benefits from the PLENTY community economy with particular attention to including people with low dollar incomes into the PLENTYs’ circulation.

 

• Use new techniques and implement new projects, such as LOOPS and grants, to manage the circulation of PLENTYs in order to increase the use by members and to encourage spending at a wider array of outlets.

 

• Use the Internet creatively but cautiously to link existing members to each other and foster new exchange relations.

 

Conclusion

 

The time between the most recent survey and the previous survey of the NCPlenty, Inc. members has presented several challenges to the BoT.  Membership roles stagnated and PLENTY spending remained at lower than hoped for levels.  Few BoT-sponsored activities took place.  Indeed, members of the BoT and other active members have characterized this time as a crossroads for NCPlenty, Inc.  Yet the information provided in this latest survey helps clarify some of the limitations in the structure and use of the PLENTY and gives the BoT some indication of how to improve the circulation of PLENTYs for the benefit of the PLENTY community economy and the region as a whole.  The implementation of a complementary currency is challenging, but both BoT members and others should acknowledge that the PLENTY still exists and people still use it to obtain goods and services and to enhance their social relations in the area.  As one member notes: “it hasn’t folded, I think that’s success if a project that’s so new and so different from the mainstream, the fact that it’s still kickin’.”  That much can’t be said for over 80% of the complementary currencies experiments that have been attempted in the United States since 1990.^[11] 

Question by Question Results of Jan/Feb 2005 Survey

 

Number of surveys sent: 173

Number of surveys returned: 68

Response rate: 39.3%

 

Demographic Questions

In what county do you reside?

County of Residence	Total
Orange	41
Chatham	14
Durham	11
Caswell	1
Alamance	1

 

How long have you resided in the region in which the PLENTY circulates?

Length of Residence	Total
1-5 years	14
5-10 years	17
10-15 years	13
Over 15 years	22

 

What race do you identify yourself as (check all that apply)?

Race	Total
White	62
Chinese	1

 

How many people are in your household (live from a household income)?

Number in Household	Total
1	13
2	27
3	15
4	7
5	4
More than 5	1

 

What is your annual household income?

Household Income	Total
Less than $15,000	3
$15,001-$25,000	10
$25,001-$35,000	12
$35,001-$50,000	11
$50,001-$75,000	14
$75,001-$100,000	9
Greater than $100,000	6

 

 

What is your level of formal education?

Formal Education	Total
High school diploma	1
Some college	6
College diploma	20
Some graduate school	8
Graduate degree	33

 

Do you own or rent your home?

Own or Rent	Total
Rent	12
Own with a mortgage	41
Own outright	14

 

Is the business registered with NCPlenty, Inc. your primary source of income?

Member Business Primary	Total
Yes	33
No	34

 

PLENTY Questions

How many PLENTYs do you have on hand at this time?

PLENTYs on hand	Total
0	29
0.25-2P	9
2.25-5P	9
5.25-10P	9
10.25-25P	5
25.25-50P	2
50.25-100P	1
100.25-150P	2
150.25-200P	0
200.25-250P	0
over 250P	0

How many PLENTYs have you accepted through your business?

PLENTYs accepted	Total
0	41
0.25-2P	5
2.25-5P	3
5.25-10P	6
10.25-25P	5
25.25-50P	3
50.25-100P	2
100.25-150P	0
150.25-200P	0
200.25-250P	0
over 250P	2

 

How many PLENTYs have you spent?

PLENTYs spent	Total
0	4
0.25-2P	2
2.25-5P	16
5.25-10P	11
10.25-25P	15
25.25-50P	13
50.25-100P	3
100.25-150P	0
150.25-200P	2
200.25-250P	0
over 250P	1

 

How much of the spending is for your business?

PLENTYs for business use	Total
Minimal business use	61
up to 25%	1
50% up to 75%	1
more than 75%	2

 

Where have you spent PLENTYs?

Where spent?	Total
Businesses in county of residence	36
Businesses out of county of residence	13
Both	13

 

What other forms of money do you use? (check all that apply)

Other forms of money	Total
U.S. Dollars (cash)	68
Credit card	55
Check	62
Money order	5
Debit card	35
Food stamps	0

 

Have you recruited any members to the PLENTY network?

Recruited members	Total
Yes	20
No	47

 

Have you attended any NCPlenty, Inc. events (fundraisers, meetings, social gatherings)?  If YES, please rate your experience.

Attended Events	Rating	Total
No	N/A	40
Yes	Excellent	5
Yes	Good	18
Yes	Fair	5

 

Have you used the NCPlenty, Inc. website?  If YES, please rate your experience.

Used website	Rating	Total
No	N/A	36
Yes	[none given]	1
Yes	Excellent	6
Yes	Good	21
Yes	Fair	4

 

What do you think gives PLENTYs monetary value? (check all that apply)

Labor	U.S. Dollars	Trust	Basket of Commodities	Not Sure
17	12	37	9	19

 

Do you engage in non-monetary exchanges? 

Engage in non-monetary exchanges	Total
No	14
Yes	54

 

If YES, please specify: (check all that apply)

Trade	Barter	Gifting	other (WSM Volunteering)	other (Sweat Equity)
38	34	33	1	1

 

If YES, do you do so regularly?

Regular Non-Monetary Exchanges	Total
No	22
Yes	32

 

If YES, please specify:

Frequency	Total
Every few months	12
Monthly	8
Weekly	12

 

If YES, do these exchanges benefit your PLENTY-associated business?

PLENTY Business Benefits	Total
No	16
Yes	16

 

If YES, do these exchanges increase the purchasing power of your household income?

Purchasing Power Increases	Total
No	11
Yes	18

 

Would you be interested in trading with others using an online trading account?

Interested in Online Trading	Total
Yes	31
No	22
Maybe	9

 

With which members have you spent PLENTYs?

Note: the average respondent has spent PLENTYs with 2.35 other members.

Member	Number of times listed
Weaver Street Market	56 (85.3% of surveys)
Pittsboro General Store Café	15 (22.1% of surveys)
Skylight Exchange	8
Cat's Cradle	6
Balloons & Tunes	5
Blast, Inc.	5
Panzanella	4
Perry-winkle Farm	4
French Connections	3
Maple Spring Gardens	3
Paper Hand Puppet Intrvnt.	3
Peregrine Farm	3
Eclectic Electric, LLC	2
Eco Farm	2
Elysian Fields Farm	2
Festival for the Eno	2
Music Explorium	2
Piedmont Wildlife Center	2
Ti Harmony	2
Will's Wild Herbs	2
alphabirds	1
Betty Thomas	1
Butterfly, graphic design	1
Carrboro Parks Project	1
Chapel Hill Religious Society of Friends	1
Emma Skurnick Illustration	1
Farmers' Market in Carrboro	1
Hell	1
Hidden Spring Farm	1
James Pharmacy Restaurant	1
Joey Howell	1
Lockhart's Trading Post	1
Margaret Matheis	1
Matt Kalb	1
NCMade	1
One Circle Farm	1
Piedmont Biofuels	1
Randy Dodd	1
Rickie White	1
Sawdust & Stardust	1
Stacye Leanza	1
T.S. Designs, Inc.	1
The Arborist	1
The Moncure Chessworks	1
Timberwood Organics	1
Turtle Creek Farm	1
Unnamed Employee	1
Wild Hare Farm	1
Windsong Retreat Center	1