Membership Model and Structure Discussion NSPE House of Delegates - - PDF document

NSPE JUNE MEETING AGENDA | MCKINLEY ADVISORS

1

Membership Model and Structure Discussion NSPE House of Delegates Saturday, June 25, 2016

Location and Room: Fairmont Dallas House of Delegates: Saturday, June 25 11:00am Getting Started and Current State  Introductions and desired outcomes  Recap project history/origin, goals, and overview  Discussion of NSPE’s current state Mark Golden and Kim Granados, NSPE National 11:20am Project Overview and Research Presentation  Discuss key themes from qualitative and quantitative research phases

• Attachment: Survey Summary Report

Jay Younger, McKinley Advisors 11:40am Models and Options  Review membership and dues structure options evaluated, including opportunities and potential implications for NSPE

• Attachment: Membership and Dues Models Evaluated

 Assessment and discussion of membership model options  Present working model as a basis for discussion

• Attachment: Model Concept Testing Overview

Jay Younger, McKinley Advisors / All 12:20pm Next Steps  Confirm direction, areas of agreement/dissonance  Discuss ongoing opportunities for HoD engagement  Recap next steps Jay Younger, McKinley Advisors / All 12:35pm Adjourn

Attachment 5

NSPE MODEL OVERVIEW | DRAFT: NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

1

A Long-Term Vision for NSPE Membership: Concept Overview

Draft: June 13, 2016 BACKGROUND NSPE is committed to supporting professional engineers and advancing the interests of the field through advocacy, communications and education. The organization has accomplished great work to move the organization and the field forward, and there is a vital need for a healthy and prosperous NSPE to uphold the essential role of professional engineers. However, over time many adaptations have been made to NSPE’s membership model and structure, leading to a relatively fractured, inconsistent member experience across the country. This “patchwork” approach is difficult to manage, leads to inconsistencies in member service delivery and creates unnecessary inefficiencies across the NSPE “family” of organizations. What’s more, NSPE has experienced a decline in dues-paying members that has resulted in financial pressures at all levels of the organization. Increased marketing and retention efforts can ameliorate, but not reverse, these trends which if not addressed will continue to limit the organization’s ability to advance its mission. As such, there is urgency for NSPE to pursue meaningful changes to its approach to membership to ensure a successful future for the organization. As you may know, NSPE retained McKinley Advisors, a leading association consulting firm, to evaluate possible long-term approaches to optimize the organization’s membership model that would address these significant challenges. McKinley’s project has included the following steps:  A thorough review of NSPE’s organizational and membership data  A preliminary round of in-depth telephone interviews  A comprehensive electronic survey deployed to over 24,000 current and lapsed NSPE members  Input from the NSPE Membership Committee  A two-day working session with the NSPE Board of Directors, which included a review of a range of possible long-term membership structures  A comparative benchmarking study of other relevant organizations A number of potentially viable membership and dues models were evaluated throughout this research, as outlined below. At present, NSPE embodies elements from the first three models.  Integrated Affiliate Model: components are aligned in purpose, but retain some level of autonomy, including the ability create programs, etc. Membership reciprocity policies vary widely in the association industry.

• Potential Advantages:
• Promotes consistency in message and unity in mission
• Streamlines administration (e.g., one method of billing and collection)
• Emphasizes collaboration and shared accountability

NSPE MODEL OVERVIEW | DRAFT: NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

2

• Potential Disadvantages:
• Potential difficulty in transitioning state-only groups back to three-tiered

membership

• Limits consumer choice

 Federation (Services to States): an association of associations; the primary role of the national organization shifts to coordinating federal advocacy efforts and advancing the ability of the states to best serve individual members.

• Potential Advantages:
• Fulfills NSPE’s mission to promote licensure by bolstering states’ ability to

serve professional engineers

• National can provide value to states by providing billing and administrative

support, advocacy services and other functions to expand their bandwidth to deliver quality programs/services to individual members

• Allows states to continue direct member service without “competition” from

National

• Similar to some current National/State relationships
• Potential Disadvantages:
• “Back-office” functions not currently viewed by some states as a benefit
• Possible that some states would decide to not join the Federation, therefore

reducing the overall impact of the organization

• No ability or mandate for National to provide programming that could add

value to individual membership

• Would likely complicate National governance model
• Will likely require a new revenue driver at the National level to be

sustainable  Independent: organizations who share a common mission but are not materially related in structural, operational or financial matters; no membership reciprocity or coordination.

• Potential Advantages:
• Frees each component from attempting to coordinate services with others

and creates bandwidth to provide programming and tangible member benefits based on their own market knowledge

• Opportunity to differentiate member content and value between NSPE

National and states

• Could provide more flexibility for NSPE to become an umbrella organization

for technician certifications and other paraprofessional pathways

• Potential Disadvantages:
• Increased competition between NSPE National and states for recruiting

members

• Limited incentive for members to join both state and national organizations
• No consistency/standardization achieved across states
• Value of National-only membership may not be robust enough at present to

drive membership

• Potential to alienate/disenfranchise NSPE volunteers currently engaged

through the three-tiered system

NSPE MODEL OVERVIEW | DRAFT: NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

3

 Consolidated: one “parent” corporation is established to administer and drive the mission and programs of work for itself and its geographic units, which are often not separately incorporated; most effective in organizations that share a singular purpose.

• Potential Advantages:
• Allows NSPE National to establish a standardized pricing model
• Reduces redundancy and inefficiency in programming, administrative costs

and other operational elements

• Potential Disadvantages:
• Seen most often in cause-related and “cure” organizations, where the

“parent” and all components share a singular purpose

• Requires group exemption and dissolution of separate corporations, which

leads to increased risk for “parent”  “Add-on” Model: NSPE membership (at either the National level or all three levels) could be an additional option added to the membership of other large engineering societies (perhaps at a discount).

• Potential Advantages:
• Creates an efficient method for recruitment through engineers’ “primary”

professional affiliation, which are often technical

• Could be added as an optional component to other membership models
• Leverages licensure and ethics messages at other key organizations
• Potential Disadvantages:
• Would require extraordinary cooperation and partnership from technical

societies (e.g., what is in it for them?)

• Could erode the perceived value of membership

After reviewing a range of possible scenarios, NSPE’s Board of Directors determined that the following models were not viable options for NSPE at present and therefore were eliminated from further consideration.

• Federation (Services to States): There is far too much variability in the capacity of various

states to provide a consistent baseline for this model; National also lacks the capacity at present to become an effective “service center” to all states.

• Consolidated: Removed from consideration due to the need for states to maintain a high

level of autonomy in their decision-making and operations.

• “Add-on” Model: Too complex and would potentially further erode of the value of NSPE

membership. Of the two remaining options – integrated and independent – the NSPE Board signaled a strong preference for pursuing a more consistent application of an integrated membership model in which states and National membership are “bundled.” In such an approach, NSPE would pursue efficiencies in pricing, service delivery and administration with the goal of delivering higher levels

• f member satisfaction and value. The Board also felt that pursuing an integrated pathway would

be the best option to achieve both mission impact and financial viability, while also allowing for reasonable variation based on the needs and capacity of NSPE’s state organizations.

NSPE MODEL OVERVIEW | DRAFT: NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

4

A WORKING MODEL The purpose of the following overview is to provide a potential starting point for discussion about how an integrated, unified, NSPE membership model could work. Potential Advantages  Integrated structure: membership would include an integrated “bundle” of local, state and national benefits to provide a more consistent member experience across the organization.  Consistent member price point: consistent, “total dues pricing” would be established for all members across the country. From within this unified price point, national dues would remain consistent and state organizations would share in the total dues revenue based on a manageable number of “tiers” that are commensurate with the level of service provided to members in the state, as determined by an evaluation of standard criteria (e.g., levels of face-to-face programming, existence of paid staff support, total number of education hours

• ffered, state advocacy activities and expenses, etc.). This method would account for the

variability that does (and will continue to) exist in staffing, resources and service levels across states. The table below provides a hypothetical scenario, for discussion purposes only. Assigning Capacity Based on Dues Pricing Alone (as analyzed through the forthcoming feasibility assessment) Category National Share State Share Total Dues Higher capacity states $50 $250 $300 Moderate - high capacity states $150 $150 $300 Moderate capacity states $200 $100 $300 Lower capacity states $250 $50 $300  Streamlined administration: The national organization would take responsibility for providing a best-in-class join / renew process and for delivering dues allocations to each

• state. Under the proposed billing, there would be no state billing option.

Potential Challenges  Difficulty in transitioning “state only” groups back to three-tiered membership.  Defining a manageable number of “tiers” and assigning states based on the range of services

• provided. (See additional information on the development of capacity tiers on page 6.)

 Increasing internal capacity at the National level to support members in states with few state-level resources and services. Success Criteria  Simplification: today there are roughly 2,200 unique price points for NSPE membership

• dues. Frustrations have been expressed about the join and renew process, and the burden
• f technology programming to accommodate adaptations leads to high levels of opportunity
• cost. A simplified membership structure will allow for a more compelling and consistent

membership value proposition across the enterprise, at a membership price point that achieves sustainable increases in membership market penetration – with the ultimate goal

NSPE MODEL OVERVIEW | DRAFT: NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

5

• f growing NSPE’s representational and financial clout through an increase in membership

count and dues revenue, respectively.  Alignment: each organization should leverage its “highest and best use” in service of NSPE

• members. Today there is a range of approaches in practice, particularly in administrative

service areas, that leads to unnecessary overlap, redundancy and inefficiency in service delivery.  Unity: developing a cohesive and integrated system of local, state and national entities that are “better together” would allow NSPE to preserve the value and strength of its nation- wide network, instead of relying on isolated islands of activity. Guiding Assumptions  Ensuring a manageable transition: the national organization’s responsibility for membership billing will occur in tandem with a transition to a unified dues price point. This coordination will help to establish a strong foundation for the transition to the unified, three-tiered model. Developing a detailed timeline and providing incentives for early- adoption to build support will be essential to the transition.  Eliminating “state only” membership options: a transition window of several years will be provided for “state only” states to transitioning into the unified membership. Current “state only” members will be grandfathered in and their dues will be migrated to the unified price point across the pre-determined transition window. It is assumed that “state only” states may see a decline in revenue in the short-term, as they will no longer be able to use the “state only” membership option as a recruiting tool.  Maintaining flexibility: this model will not be a rigid, one-size-fits-all arrangement, but rather will allow states to opt into one of an agreed upon set of member service “tiers” based on the level of member service they provide. The potential capacity rubric below presents a draft example of how these member service “tiers” could be defined, and will be refined based upon feedback from state executives and NSPE leadership.

NSPE MODEL OVERVIEW | DRAFT: NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

6

DEVELOPING CAPACITY TIERS The development of capacity tiers to determine revenue sharing is an essential component of the integrated model. The table below presents potential categories for consideration in the assignment of tiers. Activities Low Moderate Moderate-High High Staffing level (FTE Equivalents via part time, full time, AMC staffing) None .1-*.5 .6-1.5 1.6+ Sends chapter leaders to NSPE events annually Never Occasionally Frequently Always Number of CE credit hours offered annually 0-5 6-10 11-20 21+ Number of face-to-face conferences or events per year 0-2 3-5 6-10 11+ Total number of members <250 250-499 500-999 1,000+ Dues price range $0-65 $66-115 $116-200 $201-250 Membership retention rate <65% 65-74% 75-84% 85%+ Conduct annual member retention and recruitment efforts No Occasionally Regularly Frequently Uses NSPE database or other system to maintain member records No Occasionally Regularly Frequently Adheres to NSPE brand, website, and communication standards None Limited Moderate High Provides regular member communications and updates None Limited Moderate High Contributes content to NSPE National website and blogs No Occasionally Regularly Frequently Maintains a state legislative agenda aligned with NSPE's priorities Yes Yes Yes Yes Advocates to state legislatures on behalf of PEs No Occasionally Regularly Frequently Files IRS 990 or 990N tax returns annually Yes Yes Yes Yes Files appropriate dues remittance forms to NSPE National Yes Yes Yes Yes Conducts regular strategic and business planning No Occasionally Regularly Frequently Finance and Operations Member Communications Education Potential Capacity Rubric Criteria Membership Staffing Advocacy

NSPE MODEL OVERVIEW | DRAFT: NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

7

PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT The following table outlines the current distribution of state dues levels which can be used to envision how states may align to new “capacity-based” categories. “State only” members were not factored into in this analysis, as they will be incorporated into the new structure at their current rates, which will stem any short-term attrition from this group. Please note that this assessment is a draft and the preliminary figures presented are to be used for discussion purposes only. Potential Capacity-Based Categories Current State Dues Range for Category

• Avg. Current

State Dues Number of States Higher capacity states $201 + $209 5 Moderate - high capacity states $116 $200 $152 16 Moderate capacity states $66 $115 $100 32 Lower capacity states $0 $65 $40 12 Using these assumptions, without estimating any potential member attrition, dues revenue from three-tier members will increase by roughly 6% for states, but decrease by about 3% for national. While state revenue increases in aggregate, it is important to note that two states would see dues revenue loss of 15% or more because of varying price points at the state level. Current Model New Model Variance Aggregate state revenue $3,151,652 $3,336,850 +6% Aggregate National revenue* $3,230,850* $3,124,850

• 3%

*based on national dues of $150 Estimates were developed to forecast potential membership attrition resulting from dues increases based on the following assumption: If members pay an additional 20% or more in total dues (state and national), then up to 10% of members in that state are at risk of attrition. Under this assumption, states still gain about 5% in revenue, while national loses about 5%. There are 21 “lower capacity” and “moderate capacity” states at risk for losing members. Current Model New Model Variance Aggregate state revenue $3,151,652 $3,309,300 +5% Aggregate National revenue* $3,230,850* $3,057,000

• 5%

*based on national dues of $150 Based on this preliminary assessment, McKinley will work to continue to refine the financial scenarios to seek more favorable results across as many states as possible.

1227 25th St. NW, Suite 201, Washington DC 20037 202.333.6250 mckinley-advisors.com

National Society of Professional Engineers

Membership Structure and Dues Survey Summary

Prepared by McKinley Advisors February 2016

NSPE MEMBERSHIP STRUCTURE AND DUES SURVEY SUMMARY

2

RESPONSE RATE Response Rate 8% Complete 1,479 Partial 559 SURVEY RESPONSES

• 1. What is your NSPE membership status?

Value Percent Count Current member 81.8% 1,666 I was once a member, but I am no longer a member 14.7% 299 I have never been a member 1.3% 27 I don’t know 2.2% 45 Total 2,037

• 2. Which of the following best describes current or former membership level?

Value Percent Count National, state and local 77.1% 1,510 National only 5.7% 111 State and local only 11.6% 227 I don’t know 5.7% 111 Total 1,959

NSPE MEMBERSHIP STRUCTURE AND DUES SURVEY SUMMARY

3

• 3. In which state do you hold your primary state membership?

Value Percent Count None 1.8% 37 Texas 9.1% 185 New York 5.6% 114 Pennsylvania 5.4% 110 Florida 4.5% 91 Michigan 4.1% 83 North Carolina 4.0% 82 Ohio 4.0% 81 Illinois 3.9% 80 Tennessee 3.4% 70 Minnesota 3.2% 65 Missouri 3.2% 65 Virginia 3.2% 65 New Jersey 2.5% 50 Kentucky 2.4% 48 Louisiana 2.3% 47 Maryland 2.1% 43 Oklahoma 2.1% 43 California 2.0% 40 Wisconsin 1.9% 39 Nebraska 1.8% 37 Colorado 1.6% 33 Washington 1.6% 33 Georgia 1.6% 32 Mississippi 1.6% 32 South Carolina 1.6% 32 Kansas 1.5% 31 Value Percent Count Kansas 1.5% 31 Alabama 1.2% 25 Indiana 1.2% 25 Oregon 1.2% 24 Massachusetts 1.1% 23 North Dakota 1.1% 23 Alaska 1.1% 22 Idaho 1.1% 22 Nevada 1.0% 21 New Mexico 1.0% 21 South Dakota 1.0% 20 Arkansas 0.8% 17 New Hampshire 0.7% 15 Arizona 0.7% 14 Connecticut 0.6% 13 Maine 0.6% 12 Iowa 0.5% 11 Utah 0.5% 11 Montana 0.4% 8 West Virginia 0.4% 8 Wyoming 0.3% 7 Hawaii 0.3% 6 Vermont 0.3% 6 District of Columbia 0.3% 5 Rhode Island 0.3% 5 Delaware 0.2% 3 Total 2,035

NSPE MEMBERSHIP STRUCTURE AND DUES SURVEY SUMMARY

4

Members Only

• 4. Overall, how satisfied are you with your NSPE membership?

Value Percent Count Extremely satisfied 19.2% 302 Somewhat satisfied 48.2% 758 Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 28.5% 449 Somewhat dissatisfied 3.7% 58 Extremely dissatisfied 0.4% 7 Total 1,574

• 5. Based on the amount you pay in dues, would you say the value you receive from NSPE

membership is greater than the cost of membership, equal to the cost of membership, or less than the cost of membership? Value Percent Count Far greater than the cost of membership 5.5% 87 Somewhat greater than the cost of membership 18.2% 286 Equal to the cost of membership 42.3% 666 Somewhat less than the cost of membership 26.8% 422 Far less than the cost of membership 7.2% 113 Total 1,574

• 6. Which of the following best describes your mindset relative to renewal?

Value Percent Count I will definitely renew because I renew every year 60.2% 949 I will probably renew, but will wait for another notice 26.3% 414 I might renew, but will need to assess the value I receive first 12.6% 199 I am not likely to renew 0.8% 12 I definitely will not renew 0.1% 2 Total 1,576

• 7. Please explain why you may not renew your current NSPE membership.

 Open-end responses, See Excel workbook

NSPE MEMBERSHIP STRUCTURE AND DUES SURVEY SUMMARY

5

• 8. If given the opportunity, how likely would you be to recommend NSPE membership to a peer or colleague? (scale from 0 to 10, where 0 is not at all

likely and 10 is extremely likely) Value Percent Count 0 Not at all likely 0.6% 10 1 1.6% 25 2 2.6% 41 3 3.1% 48 4 3.6% 57 5 16.8% 265 6 10.9% 171 7 16.8% 265 8 21.4% 336 9 10.0% 158 10 Extremely likely 12.6% 198 Total 1,574

• 9. Considering the various levels of NSPE, how likely would you be to recommend membership to a peer or colleague at the following levels:

0 Not at all likely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Extremely likely Responses National 1.4 % 18 1.8 % 24 3.7 % 49 4.6 % 61 4.3 % 56 15.2 % 200 10.9 % 144 16.8 % 221 18.3 % 241 9.8 % 129 13.2 % 174 1317 State 1.1 % 15 1.2 % 16 2.5 % 34 3.6 % 49 3.7 % 51 12.9 % 176 10.3 % 141 15.9 % 218 18.7 % 256 13.9 % 190 16.3 % 223 1369 Local 3.9 % 52 1.8 % 24 2.2 % 29 3.7 % 49 4.1 % 55 12.1 % 162 7.8 % 104 12.7 % 169 17.6 % 235 13.4 % 179 20.7 % 276 1334

NSPE MEMBERSHIP STRUCTURE AND DUES SURVEY SUMMARY

6

• 10. Which level of NSPE delivers the most value to you?

Value Percent Count National 27.0% 335 State 31.3% 388 Local 26.1% 324 Unsure 15.6% 193 Total 1,240

• 11. Please use the space below to indicate why [answer piped from previous question] NSPE

membership delivers the most value.  Open-end responses, See Excel workbook

• 12. Which of the following most accurately describes your primary reason for joining or continuing

your membership with NSPE? Select one. Value Percent Count Gaining a sense of professional community 24.7% 373 Enhancing my professional image and credentials 21.0% 317 Track new developments/issues in the field 12.9% 195 Fifteen free online seminars 11.3% 171 Educational opportunities 11.0% 167 Other, please specify: 9.5% 143 Learning new skills/knowledge to use on the job 3.0% 45 Gaining job/career advancement or recognition 2.7% 40 Member benefits (e.g., insurance, discounts for business services, etc.) 2.3% 35 Contract documents 1.7% 26 Total 1,512

• 13. In the past year have you participated with NSPE in a volunteer role at the local, state, or

national level? Value Percent Count Yes 30.8% 464 No 68.4% 1,030 Unsure 0.9% 13 Total 1,507

NSPE MEMBERSHIP STRUCTURE AND DUES SURVEY SUMMARY

7

• 14. In which of the following ways have you volunteered with NSPE and at which level of the
• rganization was it?

National State Local N/A Responses Another volunteer role 9.6 % 33 33.0 % 114 73.6 % 254 9.0 % 31 345 State Society Officer 5.8 % 16 54.2 % 149 25.5 % 70 36.0 % 99 275 Committee, Task Force

• r Advisory Group

22.9 % 70 46.4 % 142 41.5 % 127 23.5 % 72 306 House of Delegates 16.1 % 34 10.0 % 21 2.4 % 5 76.8 % 162 211 Chapter Officer 1.5 % 5 21.0 % 70 76.6 % 256 17.7 % 59 334

NSPE MEMBERSHIP STRUCTURE AND DUES SURVEY SUMMARY

8

• 15. How would you rate the importance of the following NSPE national products and services to you and your organization? (On a scale from 1-10,

where 1 is not at all important and 10 is extremely important. If you are unaware of or have not participated in any of the products or services listed please select N/A.) 1 Not at all important 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Extremely important N/A Responses Fifteen free online seminars 5.5 % 77 3.5 % 50 4.5 % 64 4.2 % 59 9.6 % 135 6.7 % 94 10.6 % 149 15.0 % 212 12.3 % 173 20.7 % 292 7.6 % 107 1412 Legislative Action Center 5.6 % 79 4.7 % 66 6.8 % 96 4.7 % 66 11.7 % 165 9.0 % 127 13.8 % 194 14.4 % 203 9.4 % 133 11.1 % 156 8.7 % 123 1408 PE Magazine 1.8 % 26 2.0 % 29 3.7 % 53 4.3 % 61 10.1 % 144 10.1 % 143 18.7 % 266 22.4 % 318 14.7 % 209 10.6 % 150 1.5 % 22 1421 Daily Designs: Business News for PEs 6.0 % 85 3.4 % 48 6.0 % 85 4.6 % 65 12.1 % 171 11.0 % 156 14.9 % 211 16.7 % 236 10.2 % 144 8.5 % 120 6.6 % 93 1414 NSPE Update 4.2 % 60 3.7 % 52 4.2 % 60 5.0 % 71 13.6 % 192 13.0 % 183 16.6 % 234 17.1 % 241 9.9 % 140 6.7 % 95 6.0 % 85 1413 NSPE-PAC 11.7 % 164 6.9 % 97 8.4 % 118 6.2 % 87 13.3 % 187 10.2 % 144 9.4 % 132 8.8 % 124 5.0 % 70 6.0 % 85 14.0 % 197 1405 NSPE Job Board 10.9 % 154 7.2 % 102 8.9 % 126 7.9 % 111 15.7 % 222 8.8 % 124 11.4 % 161 11.3 % 159 6.2 % 88 5.7 % 80 6.1 % 86 1413 NSPE Annual Meeting 16.6 % 234 9.3 % 131 11.6 % 164 8.0 % 113 14.4 % 203 7.9 % 111 6.7 % 94 5.5 % 77 3.3 % 46 3.3 % 47 13.4 % 189 1409 Interest groups 9.1 % 128 6.3 % 89 8.8 % 123 6.0 % 85 16.5 % 232 11.8 % 166 10.6 % 149 10.0 % 141 3.8 % 53 3.1 % 44 13.9 % 195 1405 Blogs (e.g., NSPE Blog, PE Licensing Blog, Young Engineers Blog, etc.) 14.3 % 202 8.9 % 126 11.4 % 161 7.6 % 108 14.6 % 206 8.9 % 125 8.1 % 115 6.4 % 90 2.5 % 36 1.8 % 25 15.4 % 218 1412

NSPE MEMBERSHIP STRUCTURE AND DUES SURVEY SUMMARY

9

• 16. How would you rate your satisfaction with the same set of NSPE national products and services? (On a scale from 1-10, where 1 is not at all satisfied

and 10 is extremely satisfied). 1 Not at all satisfied 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Extremely satisfied N/A Responses Fifteen free online seminars 0.0 % 2.4 % 33 1.5 % 20 3.1 % 42 6.9 % 93 6.7 % 90 10.9 % 147 15.2 % 205 10.2 % 138 15.7 % 212 27.3 % 368 1348 PE Magazine 0.0 % 1.3 % 18 2.2 % 30 3.5 % 47 8.0 % 108 9.2 % 125 16.6 % 225 23.0 % 311 18.0 % 244 14.0 % 190 4.2 % 57 1355 Daily Designs: Business News for PEs 0.0 % 3.1 % 41 3.1 % 41 3.7 % 49 9.6 % 128 10.2 % 136 13.5 % 180 17.8 % 237 13.3 % 177 10.1 % 135 15.7 % 209 1333 NSPE Update 0.0 % 2.6 % 34 2.6 % 34 3.1 % 41 10.0 % 133 11.0 % 146 15.4 % 205 20.0 % 267 13.0 % 173 8.3 % 111 14.2 % 189 1333 Legislative Action Center 0.0 % 4.6 % 61 3.2 % 43 4.7 % 63 10.3 % 138 10.8 % 144 11.6 % 155 13.4 % 179 8.6 % 115 4.9 % 66 28.0 % 375 1339 NSPE Job Board 0.0 % 4.5 % 61 4.4 % 59 4.4 % 59 13.9 % 187 10.5 % 141 11.6 % 155 11.7 % 157 5.7 % 77 4.5 % 61 28.6 % 384 1341 NSPE-PAC 0.0 % 6.5 % 86 5.5 % 73 5.3 % 70 10.2 % 136 10.5 % 140 8.7 % 115 8.5 % 113 5.7 % 76 3.8 % 51 35.3 % 469 1329 NSPE Annual Meeting 0.0 % 6.3 % 84 5.4 % 72 5.5 % 73 11.0 % 147 7.0 % 94 6.3 % 84 5.2 % 70 3.6 % 48 2.8 % 37 46.9 % 627 1336 Interest groups 0.0 % 4.6 % 61 5.2 % 70 6.6 % 88 12.8 % 171 11.1 % 148 10.2 % 136 8.2 % 110 3.7 % 50 1.8 % 24 35.7 % 477 1335 Blogs (e.g., NSPE Blog, PE Licensing Blog, Young Engineers Blog, etc.) 0.0 % 6.2 % 82 5.9 % 79 5.9 % 79 12.2 % 162 9.1 % 121 7.3 % 97 7.1 % 94 2.9 % 39 1.7 % 23 41.8 % 557 1333

NSPE MEMBERSHIP STRUCTURE AND DUES SURVEY SUMMARY

10

• 17. Please list any programs, products, or services that NSPE national does not currently offer that

you would like to see in the future.  Open-end responses, See Excel workbook

• 18. Please complete the following sentences:
• a. I would like to get more involved in NSPE through…Open-end responses, see Excel
• b. I would participate more in NSPE if…Open-end responses, see Excel
• 19. Overall, how satisfied are you with the billing/renewal process for your NSPE membership

dues. Value Percent Count Extremely satisfied 29.6% 402 Somewhat satisfied 34.8% 472 Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 29.7% 403 Somewhat dissatisfied 4.3% 58 Extremely dissatisfied 1.7% 23 Total 1,358

• 20. Given your knowledge/experience of the value that state and local NSPE membership

provides, please answer the following questions about membership costs:

• a. At what price ($) would you consider membership to be inexpensive and you would

consider it a bargain to join…Open-end responses, see Excel workbook

• b. At what price ($) would you consider membership to be getting expensive, but you

would still consider joining…Open-end responses, see Excel workbook

• c. At what price ($) would you consider professional membership to be too expensive, and

you would not consider joining…Open-end responses, see Excel workbook

• d. At what price ($) would you consider membership to be so cheap that you would be

concerned about the association’s ability to provide and maintain current levels of services to its membership. …Open-end responses, see Excel workbook

NSPE MEMBERSHIP STRUCTURE AND DUES SURVEY SUMMARY

11

• 21. Given your knowledge/experience of the value that national, state and local NSPE

membership provides, please answer the following questions about membership costs:

• a. At what price ($) would you consider membership to be inexpensive and you would

consider it a bargain to join…Open-end responses, see Excel workbook

• b. At what price ($) would you consider membership to be getting expensive, but you

would still consider joining…Open-end responses, see Excel workbook

• c. At what price ($) would you consider professional membership to be too expensive, and

you would not consider joining…Open-end responses, see Excel workbook

• d. At what price ($) would you consider membership to be so cheap that you would be

concerned about the association’s ability to provide and maintain current levels of services to its membership…Open-end responses, see Excel workbook

• 22. How would you characterize your activity level in state and local NSPE activities?

Value Percent Count 1 Not at all active 33.9% 388 2 28.9% 330 3 15.4% 176 4 10.5% 120 5 Very active 11.4% 130 Total 1,144

NSPE MEMBERSHIP STRUCTURE AND DUES SURVEY SUMMARY

12

• 23. In which of the following ways have you participated with NSPE at the state or local level in

the past year? (Please select all that apply. Select N/A if you are unaware of these activities at your state or local chapter) Provided Options State Local N/A Total Professional education 315 47.7% 406 61.5% 101 15.3% 660 Conferences and meetings 313 47.3% 424 64.0% 126 19.0% 662 Volunteer

• pportunities

203 32.1% 375 59.2% 201 31.8% 633 Advocacy and policy efforts 191 33.4% 118 20.6% 334 58.4% 572 Ethics resources 179 30.9% 157 27.1% 297 51.2% 580 Research and publications 111 20.2% 64 11.7% 411 74.9% 549 Career resources 98 17.7% 90 16.3% 398 72.0% 553 Write-In Options State Local N/A Total Industrial tours 0.0% 1 100.0% 0.0% 1 Liaison to Registration Board 1 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1 Used to be very active 1 100.0% 1 100.0% 0.0% 1 MathCounts 3 75.0% 4 100.0% 0.0% 4 Mathcounts 2 50.0% 4 100.0% 0.0% 4 Mathcounts 2 50.0% 4 100.0% 0.0% 4 judging 0.0% 1 100.0% 0.0% 1 STEM Education 1 100.0% 1 100.0% 0.0% 1 N/a 0.0% 0.0% 1 100.0% 1 Fundraising/Scholarship 1 100.0% 1 100.0% 0.0% 1 Fundraising 1 33.3% 3 100.0% 0.0% 3 Policies 1 100.0% 1 100.0% 0.0% 1 Committees 1 100.0% 1 100.0% 0.0% 1 MathCounts Support 1 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1 Math Counts 1 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1 MATHCOUNTS 0.0% 3 100.0% 0.0% 3 Socializing with the engineering community 1 100.0% 1 100.0% 0.0% 1 Free PDH 0.0% 1 100.0% 0.0% 1 Membership 1 100.0% 1 100.0% 0.0% 1 Governance 1 100.0% 1 100.0% 0.0% 1 Daily News 1 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1 local president 0.0% 1 100.0% 0.0% 1 Technical meeting 0.0% 1 100.0% 0.0% 1

NSPE MEMBERSHIP STRUCTURE AND DUES SURVEY SUMMARY

13

Leadership 1 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1 NEW and MathCounts 1 100.0% 1 100.0% 0.0% 1 campaigning the profession 1 100.0% 1 100.0% 0.0% 1 Soliciting volunteers 0.0% 1 100.0% 0.0% 1 Young Adult / Early Career Programs 0.0% 1 100.0% 0.0% 1 Educational Activities 1 100.0% 1 100.0% 0.0% 1 Engineers Week 1 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1 Leadership Development 1 100.0% 1 100.0% 0.0% 1

• 24. Please list any programs, products, or services that your state does not currently offer that

you would like to see in the future.  Open-end responses, see Excel workbook

• 25. Please list any programs, products, or services that your local chapter does not currently offer

that you would like to see in the future.  Open-end responses, see Excel workbook

• 26. How satisfied are you with your NSPE membership at the following levels:

Extremely satisfied Somewhat satisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Somewhat dissatisfied Extremely dissatisfied Responses State 25.3 % 185 44.3 % 324 25.0 % 183 4.6 % 34 0.8 % 6 732 Local 32.2 % 231 40.5 % 291 18.9 % 136 6.0 % 43 2.4 % 17 718

• 27. Have you changed your membership status to state-only in the past 5 years?

Value Percent Count Yes 5.9% 13 No 91.0% 201 Unsure 3.2% 7 Total 221

• 28. Please use the space below to explain why you changed your membership status to state-only

in the past 5 years.  Open-end responses, see Excel workbook

NSPE MEMBERSHIP STRUCTURE AND DUES SURVEY SUMMARY

14

• 29. At which level would you like NSPE to focus on providing the following products and services in the future? Please select the level at which you think

it is most important for NSPE to provide each product or service. Provided Responses National State Local Total Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count In-person networking events 61 5.7% 331 30.9% 678 63.4% 1070 Online networking opportunities 414 41.4% 457 45.7% 130 13.0% 1001 Online job board 474 46.0% 428 41.5% 129 12.5% 1031 Career path and job search guidance 495 49.5% 386 38.6% 118 11.8% 999 Ethics resources 640 59.9% 321 30.1% 107 10.0% 1068 Professional education 549 48.7% 397 35.2% 182 16.1% 1128 Volunteer opportunities 42 4.0% 266 25.5% 736 70.5% 1044 Research and publications 849 82.2% 146 14.1% 38 3.7% 1033 Conferences and meetings 254 24.0% 616 58.1% 190 17.9% 1060 Government advocacy and policy efforts 486 46.2% 515 48.9% 52 4.9% 1053 Write-in Responses National State Local Total Education 0.0% 0.0% 1 100.0% 1 Enhance the profession 1 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1 International recognition 1 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1 Funding lobbying efforts 0.0% 1 100.0% 0.0% 1 Contracting and Consulting Opportunities 1 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1 Federal level advocacy 1 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1 Public outreach at all levels 1 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1 Government advocacy and policy efforts 1 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1 Promotion of PE's 1 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1 Discounted training 1 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1 Profession advocacy 1 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1

NSPE MEMBERSHIP STRUCTURE AND DUES SURVEY SUMMARY

15

Promoting the Engineering Profession to the next generation 0.0% 0.0% 1 100.0% 1 Membership Recruitment/ Retention Training/ Strategies 1 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1 Government advocacy and policy efforts 1 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1 Congressional watch 1 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1

• pposing SE License Requirements

1 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1 Community Service 0.0% 0.0% 1 100.0% 1 Daily Designs 1 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1 PE License abuse enforcement - Michigan 0.0% 1 100.0% 0.0% 1 Personal Development 1 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1 Membership assistance 0.0% 1 100.0% 0.0% 1

NSPE MEMBERSHIP STRUCTURE AND DUES SURVEY SUMMARY

16

• 30. Please rank the products and services for NSPE national to focus on according to their

importance to you. Score* Overall Rank Professional education 8489 1 Government advocacy and policy efforts 6613 2 Ethics resources 6482 3 Research and publications 5997 4 Conferences and meetings 5553 5 Career path and job search guidance 4766 6 In-person networking events 4669 7 Online job board 4526 8 Online networking opportunities 4196 9 Volunteer opportunities 3781 10 *Score is a weighted calculation. Items ranked first are valued higher than the following ranks, the score is the sum of all weighted rank counts. Lapsed Members

• 31. Which of the following most accurately describes your reasons for joining NSPE? Select all that

apply. Value Percent Count Gaining a sense of professional community 56.6% 162 Enhancing my professional image and credentials 52.1% 149 Educational opportunities 38.5% 110 Track new developments/issues in the field 37.1% 106 Learning new skills/knowledge to use on the job 24.5% 70 Gaining job/career advancement or recognition 22.7% 65 Fifteen free online seminars 19.6% 56 Other, please specify: 12.2% 35 Contract documents 10.8% 31 Member benefits (e.g., insurance, discounts for business services, etc.) 10.1% 29 Total 286

NSPE MEMBERSHIP STRUCTURE AND DUES SURVEY SUMMARY

17

• 32. Please indicate how NSPE met your expectations regarding your reasons for joining NSPE.

Exceeded expectations Met expectations Did not meet expectations Total Gaining a sense of professional community 23 14.5% 92 57.9% 44 27.7% 159 Enhancing my professional image and credentials 17 11.8% 99 68.8% 28 19.4% 144 Track new developments/issues in the field 12 11.7% 78 75.7% 13 12.6% 103 Educational opportunities 7 6.5% 77 72.0% 23 21.5% 107 Contract documents 7 25.9% 19 70.4% 1 3.7% 27 Fifteen free online seminars 6 10.9% 41 74.5% 8 14.5% 55 Other, please specify: 5 14.3% 16 45.7% 14 40.0% 35 Learning new skills/knowledge to use on the job 3 4.5% 44 66.7% 19 28.8% 66 Gaining job/career advancement or recognition 3 4.8% 43 68.3% 17 27.0% 63 Member benefits (e.g., insurance, discounts for business services, etc.) 2 7.1% 20 71.4% 6 21.4% 28

• 33. In which of the following ways have you participated with NSPE national in the past? Select all

that apply. Value Percent Count PE Magazine 85.2% 195 NSPE Update 38.0% 87 Fifteen free online seminars 31.4% 72 Daily Designs: Business News for PEs 21.8% 50 NSPE Job Board 20.1% 46 Interest groups 12.2% 28 Legislative Action Center 9.6% 22 Blogs (e.g., NSPE Blog, PE Licensing Blog, Young Engineers Blog, etc.) 8.3% 19 NSPE Annual Meeting 8.3% 19 NSPE-PAC 2.6% 6 Total 229

NSPE MEMBERSHIP STRUCTURE AND DUES SURVEY SUMMARY

18

• 34. What are the top reasons you did not renew your NSPE membership? Select top 3 reasons.

Value Percent Count Membership dues are too high for what I get in return 45.5% 120 My company does not pay for membership 29.9% 79 I have retired / planning to retire soon 20.8% 55 Other, please specify: 18.9% 50 My needs are better met by another organization 18.6% 49 I have no need for NSPE member benefits 18.2% 48 My career path has changed 9.1% 24 I receive all the benefits I need without a membership 8.0% 21 I was unaware that my membership had lapsed 8.0% 21 No need to be a member to use benefits or attend meetings 6.8% 18 Inadequate continuing education options 5.7% 15 Inadequate resources for members 3.8% 10 The education options are not on par with my level of expertise 3.0% 8 Total 264

• 35. How likely are you to rejoin NSPE in the future?

Value Percent Count 1 Not at all likely 29.0% 74 2 22.4% 57 3 32.9% 84 4 9.8% 25 5 Extremely likely 5.9% 15 Total 255

• 36. What could NSPE do or offer to convince you to renew your membership?

 Open-end responses, see Excel workbook

NSPE MEMBERSHIP STRUCTURE AND DUES SURVEY SUMMARY

19

All Respondents

• 37. For which of the following reasons did you pursue/do you maintain your professional engineer

license? Select up to 3. Value Percent Count To establish professional credibility and expertise 71.7% 1,050 To advance in my career 50.6% 741 To demonstrate commitment to the profession 39.9% 585 To gain a sense of personal achievement/accomplishment 28.9% 423 To help market myself/my company 27.1% 397 To earn respect as an engineer from the public 25.5% 373 Other, please specify: 10.4% 152 Total 1,465

• 38. Does your organization place value on their engineers pursuing or maintaining a PE license? If

yes, please describe the ways in which the organization recognizes PEs. Value Percent Count Yes: 76.9% 1,106 No 23.1% 332 Total 1,438

• 39. How do you prefer to receive communications from NSPE?

Value Percent Count E-mail 84.4% 1,234 Postal mail 8.3% 121 Not interested in receiving communications from NSPE 4.1% 60 Website 2.5% 36 Social media (e.g., Facebook, Twitter) 0.8% 12 Total 1,463 Members Only

• 40. What are your perceptions of the frequency of the communications you receive from NSPE

today? Value Percent Count Too much 13.7% 158 Just enough 75.3% 870 Not enough 3.6% 41 Don't know/No opinion 7.5% 86 Total 1,155

NSPE MEMBERSHIP STRUCTURE AND DUES SURVEY SUMMARY

20

• 41. What topics do you most want NSPE to address in member communications? Select up to

three. Value Percent Count Trends in engineering 73.1% 837 Professional education 64.4% 737 State/Local activity 55.6% 636 Advocacy 35.1% 402 Careers/career development 24.9% 285 Volunteer opportunities with NSPE 15.5% 177 NSPE's annual meeting 7.3% 83 Other, please specify: 1.4% 16 Total 1,145 All Respondents

• 42. In which of the following NSPE interest groups have you participated in within the last year?

Value Percent Count I have not participated in any interest groups 73.9% 1,066 Private practice 10.8% 156 Government 7.4% 106 Construction 6.9% 99 Industry 5.7% 82 Higher education 3.2% 46 Total 1,443

• 43. Which of the following best represents your specialty area within engineering?

Value Percent Count Civil 39.7% 583 Mechanical 16.8% 247 Electrical 14.3% 210 Other, please specify: 8.7% 128 Structural 6.7% 98 Environmental 6.5% 95 Interdisciplinary (e.g., Aerospace, Biomedical, Industrial, etc.) 3.9% 57 Chemical 3.4% 50 Total 1,468

NSPE MEMBERSHIP STRUCTURE AND DUES SURVEY SUMMARY

21

• 44. How long have you been a member of NSPE?

Value Percent Count Less than a year 4.9% 57 1-5 years 19.3% 224 6-10 years 17.1% 198 11-15 years 11.9% 138 16-20 years 10.0% 116 More than 20 years 35.1% 406 Don't know 1.6% 19 Total 1,158

• 45. Please select your age range:

Value Percent Count Under 25 0.6% 9 25-34 11.7% 171 35-44 17.4% 254 45-54 22.6% 330 55-64 39.1% 572 65+ 8.6% 126 Total 1,462