American College of Surgeons: Cancer Programs

Report on 2007 to 2008 Chapter Performance Checklist and Performance Indicators

Governors Committee on Chapter Activities (GCCA)
Lenworth Jacobs, Jr, MD, MPH, FACS, Chair
Michael Florence, MD, FACS, Vice Chair

October 2008

Background

Since 2002, the Governors Committee on Chapter Activities (GCCA) has conducted a survey titled, “Chapter Performance Checklist.” The checklist was created because the GCCA believed that some of the College’s chapters may be “underperforming,” and if the underper-formance could be documented, College resources could be specially targeted to assist those chapters. In addition, a secondary goal of the checklist was to identify “successful” chapters, with a view of using these chapters as “models” for all of the College’s chapters. Finally, the GGCA sought to determine if “large” chapters performed better than “small” chapters.

The Checklist was revamped during 2005 and 2006 and the Chapter Performance Indicators (PIs) were created.* In all, there are four PIs:

Enthusiastic Member Involvement
Supportive Administrative Structure
Sustainable Leadership
Worthwhile Member Services

Each PI is composed of various chapter activities, services, and programs. For example, the Enthusiastic Member Involvement PI includes the following types of activities:

Provided an education program for Resident members.
Included Resident member participation in CME program.
Included Resident member competition and/or awards.

The components of each PI for the College’s chapters are listed here.

Chapters’ Performances

As can be seen in here, the chapters perform relatively similarly across most of the PIs, but there are exceptions. For example, in the Enthusiastic Member Involvement PI, the responses indicate that larger chapters are more likely to maintain a membership market share of 76 percent or greater; of the 28 large chapters, 13 reported having this market share percentage. Of the 16 medium chapters, only one reported this market share percentage, and of the 18 small chapters, three reported this market share percentage.

Another noticeable discrepancy among the three sizes of chapters relates to the use of or involvement with, advocacy services and activities. Under the Supportive Administrative Structure PI, there are three items related to advocacy:

Created or maintained a Chapter Committee on Advocacy (or similar committee) to be responsible for developing and carrying out the chapter’s advocacy agenda.
Hired a lobbyist to help carry out the chapter’s advocacy agenda.
Considered and/or implemented a statewide political action committee (PAC).

For these three items, the responses indicate that large chapters are much more likely to have a committee (or some type of group) that is responsible for developing and carrying out the chapter’s advocacy agenda> Among the medium chapters, only three of 16 reported having a committee, and four small chapters (of 18) have an advocacy committee. With regard to hiring a lobbyist, four large and two small chapters reportedly do so, but none of the medium-sized chapters hired a lobbyist.

The other PI where differences were noticeable was Worthwhile Member Services, with the items related to membership communications. The responses indicate that, again, large chapters are more likely distribute one to three newsletters via postal mail (14 of 28) or e-mail (22 of 28), when compared to medium and small chapters. Similarly, large chapters were much more likely to maintain a Web site (26 of 28), compared to medium chapters (seven of 16) and small chapters (seven of 18).

Performance Indicators and Scatter Grams

In addition to plotting each chapter’s score on the chart, the scatter grams also include the mean (average) score for each group of chapters, i.e., large, medium, and small. The scatter grams are a useful way to view all of the chapters’ scores on the four PIs.

Conclusions and Recommendations

To help “equalize” chapters’ performances across the four PIs, the following steps could be considered:

Assist medium and small chapters with developing committees on advocacy; this activity helps to reinforce the importance of advocacy and also provides opportunities for more volunteers to get involved with the chapters.
Increase staff assistance to enhance chapters’ utilization of the online state advocacy action center.
Develop six to10 membership marketing templates that could be customized by the chapters and used to implement membership marketing campaigns.
Provide two to three conference calls (or Web conferences) to help enhance chapter executives’ abilities to increase their chapter’s membership market shares.
Consider the development of a grant program or the implementation of a new program or service aimed at helping the chapters with their Web sites and with their membership communications.
Consider merging small and/or medium chapters, which could help to improve low PI scores.

How the 2007 to 2008 Chapter Performance Checklist Was Conducted

Chapter executives were contacted via e-mail and directed to a special Web site. If a chapter did not have an executive, the elected Secretary (or Governor) was contacted. This year, only three chapters declined to participate: Bronx (NY), Eastern Long Island (NY), and Northwest Pennsylvania . (Note: It should be noted, that beginning in 2008, efforts have been underway to re-organize the Bronx Chapter.)

* The Performance Indicators were developed by Peggy Hoffman, president, Mariner Management & Marketing, LLC, Laurel, MD, an association management company.

For a copy of the research article, contact rpeebles@facs.org

2007 to 2008 Chapter Performance Indicators

Performance Indicators--Descriptions	Chapter Size
Performance Indicator: Enthusiastic Member Involvement
	Large (N=28)			Medium (N=16)		Small (N=18)
	Number	Percent		Number	Percent	Number	Percent
Provided education program for Resident members	21	75		9	56	10	56
Included Resident members participation in CME program	27	96		14	88	12	67
Included Resident members competition and/or awards	23	82		14	88	10	56
Included a “jeopardy game” for Residents and/or Medical Students	5	18		2	13	2	11
Included Medical Student members as presenters and/or attendees	20	71		9	56	10	56
Included an exhibit of scientific/clinical posters	14	50		5	31	4	22
Contacted new Initiates within four weeks of Congress	26	93		8	50	10	56
Utilized quarterly address change lists to contact FACS moving into your Chapter’s area	24	86		13	81	13	72
Percentage of eligible FACS who are chapter members
Market share 25-50 percent	1	4		6	38	5	28
Market share 51-75 percent	11	39		7	44	8	44
Market share 76+ percent	13	46		1	6	3	17

Performance Indicator: Supportive Administrative Structure
Advocacy
Created or maintained a Chapter Committee on Advocacy (or similar committee) to be responsible for developing and carrying out the chapter’s advocacy agenda	14	50		3	19	4	22
Hired a lobbyist to help carry out the chapter’s advocacy agenda	4	14		0	0	2	11
Considered and/or implemented a statewide political action committee (PAC)	4	14		1	6	3	17
Other
Council Meetings
Once per year	3	11		6	38	4	22
Two or three per year	17	61		6	38	9	50
More than three	8	29		3	19	3	17
Conference Calls
Once per year	11	39		3	19	4	22
Two or three per year	8	29		2	13	2	11
More than three	4	14		2	13	0	0
Utilized e-mail and/or fax for official council business	27	96		13	81	16	89
Reviewed bylaws within last three years, but not revised	20	71		11	69	7	39
Bylaws contain gender-neutral language	22	79		10	63	12	67
	Large (N=28)			Medium (N=16)		Small (N=18)
Performance Indicator: Supportive Administrative Structure (con’t)	Number		Percent	Number	Percent	Number	Percent
Number of representatives sent to annual Leadership Conference
One representative	7		25	3	19	8	44
Two representatives	7		25	4	25	3	17
Three or more representatives	9		32	3	19	0	0
Number of Young Surgeon sent to annual Leadership Conference
One Young Surgeon	11		39	3	19	11	61
Two Young Surgeons	6		21	3	19	0	0
Three or more Young Surgeons	1		4	0	0	0	0
Send Chapter Admin. or Exec. Director to Leadership Conference	12		43	5	31	2	11
Select and send one or more representatives to the Resident and Associate Society Annual Meeting	7		25	3	19	1	6
Contributed to ACS endowment funds this past year	18		64	2	13	7	39
Achieved Life Membership in the ACS Fellows Leadership Society	9		32	1	6	0	0
Chapter has a succession plan for leadership (may be specified in the bylaws)	26		93	13	81	15	83
Conducted membership needs survey to assist with chapter strategic planning and development	11		39	5	31	3	17

Performance Indicator: Sustainable Leadership
Council Representation
Young Surgeons (age 45 or less)	26		93	13	81	8	44
Resident (Resident and Associate Society)	12		43	11	69	18	100
Retired Surgeons	15		54	7	44	4	22
Colon-Rectal Surgery	15		54	7	44	13	72
Thoracic Surgery	23		82	13	81	14	78
Urology	7		25	6	38	16	89
Vascular Surgery	4		14	4	25	1	6
General Surgery	2		7	6	38	2	11
Neurological Surgery	6		21	5	31	3	17
Obstetrics-Gynecology	7		25	4	25	3	17
Ophthalmology	17		61	5	31	3	17
Otolaryngology	14		50	6	38	5	28
Orthopedic Surgery	16		57	10	63	5	28
Pediatric Surgery	12		43	5	31	4	22
Plastic Surgery	19		68	11	69	8	44
ACS Cancer Liaison Physician	27		96	15	94	15	83
ACS Committee on Trauma Representative	26		93	13	81	14	78
Surgical Department Chairs	18		64	10	63	7	39
ACS Governors-at-Large	27		96	13	81	15	83
Diversity in gender	23		82	11	69	14	78
Diversity in ethnicity	22		79	9	56	10	56

	Large (N=28)		Medium (N=16)		Small (N=18)
Performance Indicator: Sustainable Leadership (con’t)	Number	Percent	Number	Percent	Number	Percent
Other
Chapter's reserves
One year's reserves	17	61	10	63	9	50
Two year's reserves	10	36	4	25	8	44

Performance Indicator: Worthwhile Member Services
Number of CME credit hours offered per year
One to eight hours/year	11	39	8	50	9	50
Eight to 15 hours/year	14	50	6	38	6	33
More than 15 hours/year	3	11	0	0	2	11
Provided four to eight hours “hands-on” CME program	10	36	1	6	5	28
Included one or more socio-economic speakers	24	86	14	88	13	72
Included surgical specialty participation	23	82	10	63	14	78
Distributed one to three newsletters via postal mail per year	14	50	4	25	4	22
Distributed one or more e-mail newsletter(s) per year	22	79	6	38	7	39
Maintained an active chapter Web site	26	93	7	44	7	39
Select and send at least one resident to Clinical Congress	9	32	6	38	4	22
Conducted at least one meeting for general membership	28	100	16	100	17	94
Provided Category 1 CME hours via an ACCME-accredited sponsor	27	96	11	69	13	72
Conducted more than one meeting for general membership	5	18	4	25	8	44
Advocacy
Included information from ACS mailings in chapter newsletters	19	68	6	38	4	22
Regularly communicated with chapter membership regarding advocacy issues and initiatives	23	82	7	44	11	61
Participated in Washington DC Visit Program with DC Office staff	22	79	9	56	13	72
Encouraged chapter leaders and members to utilize the online federal Legislative Action Center to send letters to members of Congress supporting ACS positions and issues	23	82	7	44	11	61
Sponsored an annual Day at the Capitol, either solely as a chapter or in collaboration with other state specialty organizations	11	39	3	19	1	6
Participated in state medical society advocacy committees and/or other policymaking opportunities such as the state medical society House of Delegates	20	71	9	56	11	61

	Large (N=28)		Medium (N=16)		Small (N=18)
Performance Indicator: Worthwhile Member Services (con’t)	Number	Percent	Number	Percent	Number	Percent
Worked with College staff to utilize the online state action center to advocate on proposed legislation or regulation	8	29	2	13	2	11
Developed a Private Sector Advocacy Committee to help members deal with private insurer issues	1	4	0	0	0	0
Participated in Medicare carrier advisory activities	15	54	5	31	4	22

2007 to 2008 Chapter Performance Indicators—Scatter Grams

Chapter Performance Indicator: Enthusiastic Member Involvement

Chapter Performance Indicator: Supportive Administrative Structure

Chapter Performance Indicator: Sustainable Leadership

Chapter Performance Indicator: Worthwhile Member Services

Chapter Performance Checklists

Chapter Leaders' Resources