Evaluation of Rotary’s 2016 World Peace Conference

Promoting peace is one of six areas of focus of the Rotary Foundation. In January 2016 Rotary International held a “World Peace Conference” in Ontario, California. This post summarizes the main results of an evaluation of the conference from the point of view of participants (a paper with more detailed results is available here). The conference appears to have been successful, in terms of both the satisfaction of participants and the promotion of work on peace and conflict prevention/resolution in Rotary.

Peace conference

The World Peace Conference was one of five flagship conferences organized by Rotary in 2015-16. The other conferences are on disease prevention and treatment in Cannes, economic development in Cape Town, literacy and WASH (water, sanitation, hygiene) in schools in Kolkata, and WASH in schools near Manila.

The evaluation is based on a survey administered shortly after the conference. A single email was sent to participants to invite them to provide feedback on the conference. The web link was kept open for a week. Some 211 participants provide feedback. Nine in ten participants at the conference were members of the Rotary family, and most were Rotarians as opposed to Rotaractors and Interactors. The quality of the conference tracks and plenary sessions was deemed high. The conference was considered better than previous Rotary conference attended by participants.

Most respondents rated the various aspects of the conference highly. Slightly lower marks were however reported for the quality of the food, the cost of the conference (often an issue for district conferences as well), publicity prior to the conference, and entertainment.

Open ended questions were asked about what participants liked best and least. The quality of speakers came up as the best feature of the conference, with especially high marks for Fr. Boyle, Dr. Wollschlaeger, and Claes Nobel. The possibility for participants to choose among many different tracks and sessions was also mentioned.

As to areas for improvement, a few plenary speakers were rated poorly, as is often the case with multiple plenaries. The House of Friendship did not get high marks. Some thought that the conference was too packed. A few respondents suggested that the Peace concert was too long, and that the quality of the food could have been higher. Technical difficulties, such as a late start for some sessions, were also mentioned.

Questions were also asked about the types of speakers and sessions that participants would like to see more of, or less of in future conferences. Participants would like to see more sessions on the specific topic of the conference, whether this relates to information and debates on peace/conflict in general, information and debates on Rotary’s role in peace/conflict, or sessions on successful Rotary projects. In terms of the types of speakers to invite, there is a desire in such conferences to have more academic/research speakers, motivational speakers, and government/public sector speakers especially at the international level.

Finally, questions were asked about whether participants are engaged in peace related work currently and whether attending the conference is likely to lead them to be more engaged in such work in the future. About half of participants stated being engaged in Rotary or other volunteer work related to peace, and for one in five peace or conflict prevention/resolution are topics on which they are engaged at work and in a volunteer capacity. For a third of participants, peace/conflict work is not something they are currently working on.

Almost one in two participants stated that due in part to the conference they would be likely to be working much more on those topics in the future, and for a third, they would be likely to work a little more on those issues. Many participants are also considering in part thanks to the conference implementing Rotary peace projects or incorporating peace in their Rotary work in the future. A third stated they would definitely do so. Finally about two thirds of participants did not donate to Rotary in the past for peace related work, but half would now consider doing so, some definitely.

Responses suggest however that some of the projects participants would like to work on may not be specifically focused on peace or conflict as traditionally defined (the approach at the conference in terms of what constitutes peace/conflict related work was also fairly broad). It may also be the case that after a conference enthusiasm is high to be active in the area, while the ability to actually do so in the future may be more limited.

Still, overall the conference seems to have had a positive impact on the desire of participants to be more engaged in peace and conflict related work in the future.

To access the paper with the more detailed results of the evaluation, please click here.

Rotarians with Chains On?

by Quentin Wodon

It is not every day that The Economist magazine talks about Rotary International. Back in 2012, the magazine ran an article about polio and Rotary. So I thought you might be interested in their latest article. On May 23, 2015, the Economist ran an article entitled “Rotarians with Chains On.” The article compared Rotary (in a good way) to the motorcycle gangs that recently caused havoc in Waco, U.S.

The article noted that motorbike gangs in America have existed for 70+ year. Some 300 gangs exist today. Many are highly violent and involved in illegal drug and weapons trafficking. But some also run charity events and attend annual meetings, “like Rotarians” the article said. The article noted that some of the gangs have also expanded internationally.

John Hewko, General Secretary of Rotary International, wrote a letter to the magazine’s editors stating that “Rotarians … were disappointed to see the organisation’s good work reduced to a point of comparison to the motorcycle gangs responsible for the deadly shoot-out in Waco…. And, as The Economist has reported before, thanks to countless volunteer hours and $1.3 billion in contributions, Rotary members have played a leading role in the effort to eradicate polio. Nothing to do with Texan biker gangs.”

John’s letter was published in the June 6 issue of the magazine.

PS1 – the choice of the title of the article in The Economist was clearly not the best, even if the comparison was intriguing, and perhaps funny to some. Note that the picture in the article featured gang members with jackets that had yellow embroidery on their back, which from very far away could perhaps look almost like a wheel… What do you think?

PS2 – The article in The Economist is available here, just in case you want to check it out, and John’s letter is available here; if the links do not work for you, you should hopefully be able to access the article through your search engine.

Trying a Different Type of District Conference: Does It Work?

by Quentin Wodon

For the past four years, I have conducted evaluations of our district 7620 conferences using surveys administered through the web. This year our conference was different. It was shorter than previous conferences and cheaper to attend. It included on the first day several opportunities to participate in community service projects with local NGOs. It had substantially higher attendance (425 registrations) than previous conferences. It focused largely on fun and fellowship, with only a few sessions on Rotary matters. And it involved multiple locations with transportation provided from one location to the other. Because the conference was located in an area with several Rotary clubs nearby, many participants were also able to attend without having to book a hotel night.

Did the new format of the conference work? A total of 155 participants responded to the evaluation survey, which makes the results reliable. Overall, the conference was clearly a success. As shown in Figure 1, almost half of participants rated the conference as better than previous conferences. This is slightly below the result for last year at 60 percent, but still impressive given that for the previous two years (2012 and 2013) most respondents rated the conferences on par with previous conferences. We are getting better at organizing these events!

One Pager District Conference 2015_Page_1

Figure 2 provides data on satisfaction rates with the facilities and various aspects of the conference. The number of respondents for each question and ratings are provided. The ratings look good with most respondents rating most aspects of the conference as very good or good. Fewer responses are provided for hotel rooms because as mentioned many participants did not need to book a room, which is a good thing to keep costs down. The organization of the conference and the opportunities for fellowship were well rated. The categories on learning about Rotary and meeting with the district leadership were less well rated, probably in part because few sessions at the conference focused on Rotary business and training, but even in past conferences, these ratings have not been high either. Importantly, the cost of the conference was much better rated than in previous years – the conference was affordable!

One Pager District Conference 2015_Page_2

Some 25 different sessions were individually rated with at least nine respondents per session (this is a minimum number of respondents to ensure some reliability in the assessment). Six of the 25 sessions got 75 percent or more “very good” ratings: two of the service project sessions, the high school 4-way speech contest, the Interact session, the Saturday evening dinner with Dean Rohrs as speaker, and the subsequent Rock Tenor music performance. In other words, service projects, interactions with youth, and the Saturday capstone events stole the show in terms of approval ratings. Another nine sessions got between 60 percent and 75 percent “very good” ratings.

What could still be improved in future years? When asked what types of sessions they would like to see more off, sessions on successful projects and debates/discussions on Rotary and its future were mentioned the most. There were few of these sessions this year, and we should probably have more next year. In terms of speakers, participants would like more motivational and entertaining speakers. Participants would like the conference to remain short at two days. As to whether it is better to have one or more districts present at the conference, the feedback was split between the two options. All of those results were similar in previous years.

To sum up, attendance at the conference was high and most participants were highly satisfied with the event. The conference was affordable and fun to attend. At the same time, a number of areas for improvements were identified. Many of these recommendations are not new: they had already emerged from the evaluation of the past three conferences. The good news is that we seem to be getting better at organizing these events, and now at making sure that they are affordable for more Rotarians to participate.

Organizing Great District Conferences: Lessons Learned

by Quentin Wodon

April-May is a busy time for many Rotary districts as this is often the period during which districts organize their annual conference. How can districts organize great conferences combining learning and fun at an affordable cost for participants? A few months ago, I ran a series of three posts on preparing and evaluating great conferences. The posts were based on a detailed evaluation of the conferences organized by my district over the last three years. The evaluation is available here. Given that we are entering conference season in full swing, let me summarize in this post some of the key points I made in the three-part series on this topic a few months ago (the links to the series are Part 1, Part 2, Part 3).

What Feedback Did Conference Participants Give?

In my district, our evaluations suggested that participants were often fairly happy with most aspects of the conferences. But they also had suggestions. When asked what types of sessions they would like to see more off in future conferences, they suggested having more sessions on successful projects and debates/discussions on Rotary and its future. In terms of the types of speakers, participants would like more motivational and entertaining speakers, as well as more speakers from the business world versus nonprofits. Participants would also like less time spent on award ceremonies.

Participants would like the conferences to be shorter (two days). Shorter conferences would also help reduce the cost of attending the conference, which is often a complaint. This in turn may make it easier to attract more Rotarians to these events, including some of the younger Rotarians for whom cost may be a more serious issue. As to whether it is better to have one or more districts present at a conference, feedback was split between the two options – some participants prefer to have only their own districts, while others like the opportunity to meet members from other districts. Virtually all participants like opportunities for discussions with Interactors and Rotaractors, and would like more such opportunities.

While some of the feedback received in your district may be different, it seems to me that quite a bit of what we learned in my district about what was great and what could be improved in district conferences is likely to apply in many other districts as well.

Is It Difficult to Evaluate Conferences?

It is not. Evaluating district conferences in a serious way is feasible at virtually no cost, as illustrated by the work we did in our district. The surveys for the evaluation were administered through the web and by sending an email to participants a few days after the conferences took place. Using web surveys reduced the time needed to tabulate data, and ensures that there is no waste of information, say from legibility issues often encountered with printed surveys. Participation rates can be strong, so that the surveys are representative statistically. You can even monitor changes in the evaluation of conferences over time – as we did – by fielding similar surveys year after year.

Our latest survey for 2014 survey had a total of 24 questions, some with multiple sub-questions. The questionnaires were designed to take about 15’ to complete, so that substantial information can be captured without taxing too much the time of respondents. Two emails (one initial email and one reminder email) were sent to participants to ask them to fill the survey – this was enough to generate fairly good response rates.

In terms of the structure of the questionnaire, a first set of questions were asked to respondents about their profile (age, gender, Rotary status, length of membership, club affiliation, past attendance at district conferences, attendance rate at club meetings, positions of leadership in the organization, etc.). A second set of questions were asked for participants to evaluate all of the conference sessions to which they participated one by one, as well as their general appreciation of the conference along a number of characteristics and some of their preferences for future sessions. Finally, a last set of questions were open-ended to elicit qualitative feedback on the conferences. The questionnaire of the 2014 evaluation is available in the report on the evaluation.

If your district is one of many that are organizing their conference in the last quarter of the Rotary year, good luck! And if you would like help with evaluating your conference, please let me know by sending me an email through the Contact Me page of the blog.

Rotary Foundation Basics, Part 3: What’s Great, What Could Be Improved?

by Quentin Wodon

This last post in a series of three on The Rotary Foundation (TRF) looks at what is great about the foundation, and what could probably be improved. TRF support for Rotary projects is first discussed, based on my own perceptions and those of a few fellow Rotarians to whom I talked before writing this post. Ratings received by the foundation as a charity are then briefly reviewed.

TRF Support for Rotary Projects

On the plus side, TRF support for polio has been instrumental in the near eradication of the disease, as mentioned in the previous post in this series. The focus on polio has also helped Rotary in getting a seat at the table with major partners such as the World Health Organization and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Even more importantly for Rotarians involved in service projects, the matching system whereby TRF co-funds grants is well appreciated. Both district and global grants benefit from TRF support, but I will focus in this post on global grants.

TRF provides up to $200,000 in matching funds for global grants, with the minimum match being $15,000. This is for projects that reach a minimum size of $30,000 in overall cost/funding. The system for global grants has been fundamentally revised in recent years in order to have fewer but larger grants, which should help in ensuring that projects have a bigger impact on the ground and are well managed. Six areas of focus have been selected for the grants, which is also positive to narrow down a bit the scope of what is funded (even if this scope remains fairly broad). The rules of the game for putting together global grants are clear, which also helps.

In terms of potential areas for improvement, the Grants Online System may not be as friendly as it could be, given today’s technology. Several Rotarians mentioned to me that there may also be at times issues with the grant review process. Hopefully reviewers are as objective and qualified as they should be, but this is something that could be assessed. In addition, despite efforts to help Rotarians put together great global grants, more could be done in terms of e-learning resources and other tools to help the membership develop impactful projects beyond the management and processing aspects of grants.

Many global grants are complex and require substantial expertise. It is not always clear that project teams have enough expertise. The system relies largely on volunteer hours to prepare and implement grants. This helps not only for cost savings but also for getting Rotarians’ hands dirty. Personal experiences gained through hands-on work are invaluable, especially when working directly with project beneficiaries. But it may be useful in some cases to rely more on external paid expertise, especially for large grants. In principle Rotarians can get help from Rotarian Action Groups (RAGs) for the design and implementation of projects. These are great resources, but it is not fully clear how active and effective some of the RAGs are.

One area of concern is the ability of TRF to respond to crises, with the most recent case being Ebola in West Africa. There are two issues here. One issue is fundraising. TRF does not seem to have a good system to provide incentives (read matching funds) for individual Rotarians to donate in times of crisis. Many Rotarians donate when a major crisis hits, but they often do so through other organizations because TRF does not have a good system to attract these donations. If TRF could set aside funds to match individual donations by Rotarians for major crises, this could help the foundation raise more funds. It would also help TRF gain in visibility as a humanitarian organization. The other issue is about the allocation of the funds that could be raised. Part of the funds could be allocated to Rotary clubs in affected countries for their projects to respond to crises with some type of fast track approval. Part of the funds could also be transferred to well established national and international NGOs active on the ground in responding to crises. Overall, setting up a stronger crisis response mechanism within TRF could strengthen the Rotary brand while providing much needed rapid support to vulnerable groups in countries affected by major crises.

Finally, more expertise and commitment from TRF is needed for proper monitoring and evaluation of global grants, and for disseminating the results of such evaluations. My perception is that few projects are evaluated in-depth with baseline and endline data collection to assess impact. Impact evaluation can be expensive, so not all projects should be evaluated in that way. But more should be done in this area, including in partnership with some of the NGOs implementing TRF projects. If TRF could fund more innovative projects that would be evaluated seriously, it could have a larger impact because other organizations with more resources could then bring successful TRF pilots to scale.

Ratings for TRF as a Charity

The comments above point to some great features of TRF, but also some potential areas for improvement. One should not forget however that overall TRF is very well rated as a charity. Given that many of the followers of this blog are new, let me repeat here what I mentioned on TRF ratings a few months ago on this blog as well as in another post for Rotary Voices.

In the US, Charity Navigator provides ratings for charities. Three ratings are available for financial performance, accountability and transparency, and a combination of both. Charities can get one to four stars overall. TRF has the highest possible rating (four stars). The yellow dot in the Figure below shows exactly how the foundation is rated – it has a rating of 89.8 out of a maximum of 100 for financial performance, and 97.0 on accountability and transparency, which yields a four stars rating overall.

RI Foundation Graph

For financial performance, Charity Navigator considers seven main indicators: the share of the charity’s budget spent on programs and services, the share spent on administrative expenses, the share spent on fundraising expenses, the fundraising efficiency ratio, the primary revenue growth, the program expenses growth, and the working capital ratio. Details are available on the Charity Navigator website. For accountability and transparency, a total of 17 indicators are used. TRF could have scored even higher except for the fact that its donor privacy policy requires donors to opt out for their basic information not to be (potentially) shared with other charities.

Conclusion

Overall, TRF helps fund great projects on the ground, and it is also well rated as a charity. The reform of the global grants model of the last few years to define areas of focus and implement fewer but larger grants was smart. But as for any other organization, there are also areas where TRF could probably do better, especially in terms of the friendliness of the Grants Online System, the need to ensure that project teams have the expertise they need, the ability to respond to humanitarian crises, and the need to better evaluate the impact of projects that appear especially innovative. What do you think?

Note: This post is part of a series of three on TRF: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3.

Rotary Membership Analysis 10: Telling Our Story

by Quentin Wodon

This is the last post in this series on Rotary membership analysis. The post is about the importance of telling our story. It seems obvious that we should tell our story, but how to do so may not always be straightforward, in part because many clubs are not used to do so. In addition, there is a lot of diversity in what Rotarians do, not only internationally and at the district level, but even at the level of individual clubs. Which story should be told? How should it be told? Who should stories aim to reach or target? Which types of media should be used? These are all questions to which I will come back in this blog in the future. For now, let me share a few simple thoughts as a way to close this series of ten posts on membership analysis and promotion.

Diversity in Service

Telling our story is essential to attract and retain members. And we have many stories to tell. Rotarians are involved in a wide range of activities. In order to illustrate this diversity in the area of service projects, my daughters interviewed two dozen Rotarians for the book on which this series of posts is based. The first interviewee told the story of a group of young girls from her native Bolivia who went on a journey from poverty to winning the country’s national rhythmic gymnastics competition with a “little help” from her and fellow Rotarians. The second story was about a great tutoring program in a public school that has been featured on this blog.

Some of the stories were about support to the less fortunate in the local communities in which Rotarians live, whether through the bountiful backpack project that provides meals and snacks to children in need or renovation projects to help disadvantaged families in need of better housing. Other stories were about international projects, from building awareness about HIV-AIDS through soccer to supporting orphanages in Africa and burned children in Chile. One story was about employment and therapeutic services for persons with disabilities in Brazil. Two stories were about access to water in India.

Friendship and peace projects were also part of the list, as was a prosthetics project for amputees in Iraq. An innovative literacy project in Ecuador, the provision of an ambulance for a community in Nepal, and a scholarship program for the hearing impaired in Washington DC were also included. In still other stories, Rotarians talked about service they have provided outside of Rotary in many different ways, often by founding or managing nonprofits.

Arguably all of these stories and projects made a real difference in the lives of the less fortunate. All should be told (and were on this blog), as should other initiatives and events implemented by clubs and districts. I am convinced that there is an appropriate media outlet for any good story. Both traditional and social media can be used not only in order to promote Rotary, but also– and probably even more importantly – to promote the cause of the less fortunate we are trying to help.

Traditional Media

Many of us were raised in the traditional media era – television, newspapers, radio… These media remain important and stories can be targeted to them for publication or coverage. The ability of clubs or even districts to be featured in major traditional media outlets is however limited. Competition for visibility in major media outlets is fierce, and only top stories – especially impactful and innovative projects or major community-based fundraising events – should be targeted at those outlets, often through personalized and strategic contacts.

But there is also a wide range of smaller media outlets that are often looking for good materials. Even if those outlets have a smaller reach, they are worth investing in. If you subscribe to Google alerts about Rotary and related topics, you will see that every day local newspapers publish stories about Rotary. Clubs should be more systematic in targeting these media opportunities. Even district conferences can be worthy of a media story – as done last year by my District Governor who landed an interview about our district conference with a local TV station.

Social Media

Let me admit here that it took me some time to engage with social media. I published my first blog only in 2013 and I started to be serious about blogging at work in 2014 (the World Bank makes this easy with many different platforms by topic on which staff can propose blog posts). As I started to blog more, I realized that the blogs were read. This may have been obvious to some of my colleagues, but again it took me a while to warm up to this form of communication.

Well, three months ago I launched the Rotarian Economist blog. It took some work, but the blog now has more than 1,700 followers from all over the world. In other words, this can work. You or your club can also engage in social media, perhaps not through your own blog if you do not have enough time to commit to it, but then in other ways. You could write for your district or zone blog if there is one, or for the blogs of Rotary International listed on the right side of this page. Apart from blogs, you could also use other social media such as Facebook or Twitter. Again, if you do decide to engage in social media, you should make sure that you plan ahead in order to have good materials to share on a consistent basis over time. But it can really pay off.

Club Website and Materials

Let’s face it: many clubs have so-so websites. A club’s website is the club’s public identity. It should be attractive, modern, dynamic, purposeful. I mentioned earlier that there is a lot of diversity in the service work of Rotary clubs. That is a good thing since members may have different interests. But while diversity is great, clubs should also aim to stand for something, develop their own niche, and communicate their positioning. They should develop great brochures that can be shared with prospective members and others in the community. Too few clubs develop such materials, even though they can be very useful in attracting members and making Rotary better known locally.

It is likely that none of what I have shared today through this post is new to you. But I wanted to end this series of posts by emphasizing the importance of communicating our story. This matters for the future of clubs and yet as statistics shared in a previous post in this series suggest, this is not done nearly enough.

Note: This post is part of a series of 10 on Rotary Membership Analysis. The posts with links are as follows: 1) Introduction, 2) The Challenge; 3) Why Do members Join?; 4) Volunteer Time; 5) Giving and the Cost of Membership; 6) What Works Well and What Could Be Improved; 7) Targeting Geographic Areas for Growth; 8) Initiatives to Recruit Members; 9) Fundraising Events; and 10) Telling Our Story.

Rotary Membership Analysis 6: What Works Well and What Could Be Improved

by Quentin Wodon

How satisfied are Rotarians with various aspects of their membership experience? This question was asked in the membership survey on which many posts in this series are based. In this post I will share summary results for my district, but readers should remember that because clubs and districts are all unique, each club and district should conduct its own assessment of strengths and areas for improvements – these can differ substantially between clubs and districts.

Satisfaction with the Membership Experience

One of the questions asked in the survey was “How do you think your club is doing in the following areas?” Twenty five different areas were identified in four categories. For each area members could rate their membership experience as excellent, good, average, poor, or don’t know. The areas were:

  1. Club Membership: Quality of the existing membership, Diversity in the membership, Growth and retention, Gender balance, Age balance, Efforts to meet/welcome new members, and Fellowship between members;
  2. Club Meetings: Location convenience, Location décor/atmosphere, Quality/variety of the food, Quality of the speakers, Organization of meetings and timeliness, Day and time of meetings, Club attendance at regular meetings, Quality of other meetings/events, Greeting and treatment of visitors, Attendance at district/other events;
  3. Information/Communication: Communication from leadership & assembly, Quality of the club’s newsletter or bulletin, and Communication with the local media;
  4. Service activities: Amount of local service activities, Quality of local service activities, Amount of international service activities, and Quality of international service activities.

Rotarians were highly satisfied with the quality of their club’s membership (81% favorable ratings, i.e. an excellent or good rating) and the fellowship between members (77%). Ratings were lower on the ability to attract (46%) and retain (43%) new members. On diversity in general, ratings were fairly encouraging (66% favorable), but gender (58%) and age balance (40%) ranked lower. As to the ability of clubs to meet and welcome new members, it was rated favorably by 61% of members, which is too low given that this should be a top priority for clubs.

Most aspects related to club meetings were rated very highly, with favorable ratings ranging from 76% to 91% on seven of the ten attributes in this category. Recall that in a previous post I mentioned that meetings as well as service projects were two core products that clubs are “selling” to their members. On meetings, clubs are doing well with the existing membership. The three aspects related to meetings that were rated lower were the quality/variety of the food (with still 70% favorable rating), club attendance at regular meetings (60%) and especially attendance at district/other events (33%). The issue of low attendance at district events is widespread – but annual district conferences and other events can be implemented successfully (see the 3-part story on district conferences here).

Ratings were relatively good for internal communication within clubs (71% favorable ratings for communication from the club leadership and 66% for the quality of the club newsletter/bulletin), but lower for communication with local media (32%, the lowest score for all attributes combined).

Finally, local service activities were well rated (66% for the quality of the activities and 63% for the amount of local service done), but this was less the case for international service (50% and 45% respectively).

Level of Club Involvement

In order to triangulate the above results, another question was asked as to whether Rotarians found their club’s involvement with various activities excessive, adequate, or insufficient. The activities included were: Membership development, Member orientation/education, Membership retention, Fellowship activities, Support to Rotaract/Interact, Other club administrative/internal matters, Service to the district, Local service projects, International service projects, Club public relations and/or media, Fundraising, Rotary International Foundation, and Other.

Very few members responded that their club’s involvement was excessive in any area, although one in ten Rotarians suggested that fundraising may be too prominent (there may be a risk of donor fatigue for a small share of the membership). The areas for which more than a fourth of the membership requested more active involvement by clubs were membership development, member retention, member orientation/education, club public relations and/or media, and finally support to Rotaract and Interact clubs.

These results should not be too surprising. At least in North America, many Rotarians may feel that the results broadly apply to their own club or district. The membership challenge in high income countries is recognized by members, which is why they see membership development, member orientation and education, and membership retention as top priorities that clubs should invest even more in than they do right now. But it is worth noting that the issues of the support provided to Rotaract and Interact clubs and of the visibility of clubs in the media are related to the membership challenge. Rotaract and Interact may help in building the future pipeline for Rotary membership, and media relations are essential for Rotary’s public image, which is also likely to affect the future membership pipeline.

What Next?

What works well and what could be improved tends to be acknowledged by clubs, but I still wanted to share those basic results from our membership survey to provide more precise quantitative estimates on perceptions about those issues. Sometimes quantification can help focus attention, and when membership surveys are repeated over time, this helps for monitoring and evaluation.

We are now more than half-way through this introductory  series of posts on Rotary Membership Analysis. In the next four posts in the series, I will move a bit closer to some of the solutions that clubs can implement to confront the membership challenge. I will first discuss how to estimate relative potential for growth by geographic area – an approach that can help in targeting resources to areas that are underserved by Rotary. Next, I will discuss some of the strategies that have been implemented by clubs in my district to boost membership. After that I will discuss interesting initiatives for fundraising that have the added benefit of also building community awareness of Rotary. Finally, I will briefly touch on the use traditional as well as social media to promote clubs and districts and the importance of telling the story of our successful service projects.

Note: This post is part of a series of 10 on Rotary Membership Analysis. The posts with links are as follows: 1) Introduction, 2) The Challenge; 3) Why Do members Join?; 4) Volunteer Time; 5) Giving and the Cost of Membership; 6) What Works Well and What Could Be Improved; 7) Targeting Geographic Areas for Growth; 8) Initiatives to Recruit Members; 9) Fundraising Events; and 10) Telling Our Story.