Membership Reviews: Why They Fail

I had the opportunity to read over the Membership Review articles published in the latest AFA Essentials and thoroughly enjoyed reading each article. Each brought unique perspectives and interesting points. However, I felt there were some points that were neglected or not touched on enough that I think is worth addressing.

Before I begin, it should be noted that I have had various experiences with membership reviews. I joined my undergraduate chapter after they had experienced a membership review. I've conducted membership reviews for a National organization as well as requested a membership review at a few institutions as a campus-based professional. I've had great relationships with National Headquarters during membership reviews and I've had terrible relationships with National Headquarters during membership reviews. I even had one National staff do a membership review without even telling us...the institution! With all that said, I want to state the following...

When in doubt, I am in the camp that feels you should close more chapters and spend little time conducting membership reviews. Why? Rather than try to eloquently write it myself, I would refer you to the following article here written by a person I admire, Mike McRee and his co-author, Martin Cobb.

HOWEVER, part of why I don't really believe in membership reviews stems from my belief, that we still have no idea how to do them correctly. Thus, why they fail! Let me explain in three points:

1. No Data/Assessment
To my knowledge, there has been no concrete data and or assessment to show that membership reviews are successful or not. I wonder if any inter/national organizations have internal data to show the success rate of conducting membership reviews that include cost/benefit analysis, etc. I'm not saying there isn't data out there, but I've never seen any at AFA, national conference or regional conference. If someone has it, please share. I'd love to read it.

2. No Transparency
Similar to Mr. Wilkinson's points in his article here, I don't believe there has been much education to students about the purpose of membership reviews. I'd also venture to say that there is very little education done in consultant staff training at inter/national headquarters about membership reviews.

Most of all, there is no outline (from institutions or inter/national headquarters) that really articulates what warrants a membership review. Is it after the second strike? Is it after a rape incident? As. Ms. Burke points out in her article here, we don't even know who should take the lead more often than not. So, when do they occur? I'm sure there will never be something written by either side (campus or HQ) for fear of litigation but with no transparency, how will students know when they are reaching the point of a membership review. As Mr. Wilkinson pointed out and others, more education is needed on all fronts.

3. No Follow-Up
The last point is in my opinion, the biggest reason why membership reviews fail. There is hardly ever any follow-up. Almost all the authors of the Essential articles mentioned it (Westol in #9, Burke #2 suggestion, Grindel #8, Wilkinson in talking about communication) and yet the one who shouted it most, was Mr. Baker...the student! See for yourself here.

In Mr. Baker's words, "Another aspect that was handled differently than I expected was headquarters' follow-up contact after the membership review. They did a good job with the appeals process for members who deserved a second chance; however, there was no real guidance from headquarters otherwise." He goes on to state that what his chapter needed was a "sense of direction."

This is where I think we have failed as a profession. We invest so much time in recruiting members. We spend an incredible amount of money hiring Expansion/Extension staff as well as New Colony/Chapter staff. Yet, with membership reviews, we treat it as a "get in, get out and hope it works" mentality. As if we are treating a bird with a wounded wing and after 2 months of recovery, kicking it off a ledge, hoping it will fly. If not, oh well.

If we want to truly see membership reviews succeed, we have to devote the time and resources. That means communication with the students on a frequent basis. Clear expectations for all parties involved including students, alumni and campus-based professionals. That also means full-time staff from the inter/national organization committing their time and efforts to being there for the students as they lick their wounds. See for yourself in Mr. Baker's words! He just wanted and needed guidance. Support. Clarity. So, why not commit to that as campus-based professionals, national organizations?


In closing, we need more data, transparency and follow-up if we are going to see membership reviews work on a consistent basis. Right now, we are just "hoping" they will work. Let me know what you think.