What is the member survey of process? Why should you use the member survey of process? When should you use the member survey of process? How should you conduct the member survey of process? What is the member survey of process? You may have been invited to complete a short survey after visiting a restaurant, attending an event, or using a service. These surveys often ask about specific aspects of the experience, such as communication, accessibility, staff interactions, and overall satisfaction. Imagine visiting a restaurant to celebrate a friend's birthday. The atmosphere is welcoming, the service is friendly, and most of the experience meets your expectations. However, the menu is difficult to read, and your server cannot answer a question about an ingredient. In a feedback survey, you describe what worked well and suggest improvements. The restaurant can use those comments to identify changes while maintaining the parts of the experience that customers value. A member survey of process serves a similar purpose for a community group or coalition. It asks members about their experiences with the group's day-to-day work, including planning, leadership, communication, and participation. The findings can help the group identify strengths, address barriers, and improve how it operates. Members' satisfaction is one source of information; it does not by itself establish the initiative's effectiveness or represent the views of the wider community. How does this differ from the member survey of goals? The two surveys address related but different questions: The member survey of goals asks people to assess the importance and feasibility of proposed goals or actions during planning and later reviews of priorities. The member survey of process asks coalition or group members about their experiences once the initiative is underway, with a focus on how the group operates. A process survey might cover planning, leadership, services, community involvement, and members' perceptions of progress. Questions should focus on matters respondents have enough experience to assess, with opportunities to explain their answers or indicate that they do not know. Why should you use the member survey of process? The value of listening to members A process survey gives members a structured opportunity to describe what supports or limits their participation. It can reveal strengths, unmet needs, communication problems, and differences in experience that may not surface in meetings. Asking for feedback is only the beginning: members also need to see how the group considers and responds to it. Respectful follow-through can support trust and continued involvement, while requests for input that lead to no visible response may discourage participation. When should you use the member survey of process? Timing the survey An annual survey may provide a useful review point, but choose a schedule that fits the initiative's pace and decisions. A new coalition or a group undergoing substantial change may benefit from earlier feedback, while shorter check-ins can address specific issues between surveys. Allow members enough experience to answer meaningfully, avoid unnecessary repetition, and set aside time to analyze findings and act on them. How should you conduct the member survey of process? The process can be divided into manageable steps: develop relevant questions, invite participation, summarize responses, and use the findings. Before starting, agree on who will coordinate the work, how responses will be protected, and when members will receive a summary. Develop a survey Develop a survey that helps you understand members' experiences with the initiative. Invite input from people with different roles, lengths of involvement, and levels of participation, including those who attend less often. A small design group can identify topics and prepare a draft, then ask several intended respondents to test whether the questions are clear and relevant. Do not rely only on the most active members to define what matters. Ask clear, neutral questions about one topic at a time. Specify a reporting period, such as the past six months, and use consistent response options. Include space for comments and suggestions, along with separate "Not sure" or "Not applicable" options where needed. These options should not be treated as neutral satisfaction ratings. Questions might address planning and implementation, leadership, communication, access to participation, or how decisions are made. Choose topics that the group can usefully act on and keep the survey short enough to complete without unnecessary burden. For example, a question about planning and implementation might read: During the past six months, how satisfied have you been with the group's leaders following through on agreed project responsibilities? Very dissatisfied Somewhat dissatisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Somewhat satisfied Very satisfied A "Very satisfied" response indicates a positive assessment of this particular aspect of leadership. Consistently positive responses across several questions may suggest broad satisfaction among those respondents, but they do not establish that every member has the same experience. Ask an explicit overall satisfaction question if that is something you need to measure, and review comments and differing responses alongside any summary score. Consider questions about satisfaction with the following aspects of the group: Planning and implementation, including clarity of responsibilities and follow-through Leadership, communication, and opportunities to influence decisions Services or activities that members have enough experience to assess Community involvement, accessibility, and inclusion of different perspectives Perceived progress toward goals, considered separately from direct evidence of outcomes Obtain the ratings Tailor the survey to the initiative's current questions and decisions. Explain its purpose, who is invited to respond, how long it should take, and how the findings will be used. Make participation voluntary and provide appropriate language and accessibility support. Sample surveys can offer ideas, but review and adapt them to fit your group. Invite all members within the survey's defined scope, including people who do not regularly attend meetings. Offer suitable options such as online, paper, telephone, or supported completion. For paper surveys, a private return box or prepaid envelope may help; for online surveys, check what identifying information the system collects. Explain whether responses are anonymous or confidential, who can access them, and how comments will be reported. Provide a clear deadline and respectful reminders. Assess satisfaction Once responses are collected, summarize the number and percentage selecting each option for each question, using the number who answered that item as the denominator. Report skipped, "Not sure," and "Not applicable" responses separately. Review comments for recurring themes and important concerns, including views expressed by only a few people. Note how many members responded and whose perspectives may be missing. Protect identities when reporting small groups or quotations, and avoid assuming that respondents represent every member or the whole community. Use the data to improve the functioning of the initiative Share an accessible summary of strengths, concerns, and limitations with members, then discuss what the group should do next. Identify priorities, assign responsibilities, and set dates for follow-up. Explain which suggestions will be acted on, which need further consideration, and which cannot currently be implemented. Members should be able to see that their feedback is being considered and used by the group. Adapt available sample cover letters, surveys, and results summaries to support your process. Check that the wording matches the questions you need answered and that any promises about privacy reflect what you can provide. Keep a record of the questions and methods used so future surveys can support meaningful comparisons, while documenting necessary changes. After reviewing the findings and beginning follow-up, consider what additional evidence would help you understand the initiative's results. The member survey of outcomes offers another way to gather members' perspectives, which can complement other evidence about changes in the community. Contributor Aimee Whitman Resources Online Resources The Basic Guide to Evaluation is a website that provides links to information about specific aspects of evaluation including methods, logic models, and overcoming major evaluation challenges. Community-Based Participatory Research is a website designed by the National Institutes of Health to assist in implementing community-based participatory research into an evaluation. CDC Evaluation Resources provides an extensive list of resources for evaluation, as well as links to key professional associations and key journals. Francisco, V., & Wolff, T. (1996). Evaluating coalition efforts. Amherst, MA: AHEC Community Partners. Evaluating Your Community-Based Program [pdf] is a handbook designed by the American Academy of Pediatrics and includes extensive material on a variety of topics related to evaluation. The User-Friendly Handbook for Program Evaluation is a guide to evaluations provided by the National Science Foundation. This guide includes practical information on quantitative and qualitative methodologies in evaluations. The W.K. Kellogg Foundation Evaluation Handbook provides a framework for thinking about evaluation as a relevant and useful program tool. It was originally written for program directors with direct responsibility for the ongoing evaluation of the W.K. Kellogg Foundation. Print Resources Berkowitz, W. (1982). Community impact: creating grassroots change in hard times. Cambridge, MA: Schenkman Publishing Company, Inc. Cox, F. (eds.) (1984). Tactics and techniques of community practice. Itasca, IL: F.E. Peacock Publishers, Inc. Fawcett, S., Paine, A., Francisco, V., Schultz, J., Richter, K., Lewis, R., Williams, E., Harris, K., Berkley, J.., Fisher, J., & Lopez, C. (1994). Work group evaluation handbook: evaluating and supporting community initiatives for health and development. Lawrence, KS: Work Group on Health Promotion and Community Development, University of Kansas. Fetterman, D. (eds.) (1996). Empowerment evaluation: knowledge and tools for self-assessment and accountability. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. Pietrzak, J., Ramler, M., Renner, T., Ford, L., & Gilbert, N. (1990). Practical program evaluation: examples from child abuse prevention. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. Rutman, L. ( eds.) (1984). Evaluation research methods: a basic guide. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
