Member Survey Results
BY KAE RADER RADER CONSULTING, LLC
Members, Athletes, Coaches and Others Weigh-in on USA Shooting’s Organizational Performance and Challenges
More than 400 members,
athletes, coaches and other USA Shooting (USAS) stake- holders voiced
their opin-
ions in a survey sponsored by the USA Shooting Board of Directors and National Of- fi ce Staff, and conducted by Rader Consulting, LLC. The purpose of the survey
was to get feedback on the quality of USAS programs and services and to seek suggestions on what USAS could do to increase stake- holder value and address organizational challenges. The survey can be repeated in future years to monitor or- ganizational performance. More than 1,000 individ- uals received an email link to the online survey. They were randomly selected from among various stake- holder groups in the USAS
Paralympic Rifle or Pistol 1%
database by independent contractor and database manager Barnet Consulting Incorporated Mike Barnet. Survey responses were kept confi dential and were not at- tributed to specifi c individu- als.
The survey design was
based on social a science theory, which proposes that people’s experiences (in this case, Stakeholders’ ratings of of USAS programs and services) impact their at- titudes (measured here as USAS Stakeholder Commit- ment), which in turn drive their behavior (renewals, volunteer activity, fi nancial support, etc.). To assess the level of stakeholder commit- ment to USA Shooting, the survey asked the following: “How likely would you be to recommend USA Shooting
Respondent Discipline
Other 2%
Pistol 18%
Rifle 42%
Shotgun 37%
to a friend or colleague who is interested in the sport?” “Indicate your level of
agreement with the follow- ing statement, ‘I am proud to be associated with USA Shooting.’” “How would you rate the
overall performance of USA Shooting as an organiza- tion?” Responses to these ques-
tions were averaged to cre- ate a “Commitment Index.” Overall stakeholder commit- ment to USA Shooting is very good. The overall Commit- ment Index score was 8.3 on a 0-to-10-point scale. Ratings for programs
and services were also very good. USA Shooting News and Paralympic coaches rated the highest at 8.5 on a 0-to-10-point scale (where 0=poor and 10=excellent), and the board of directors were rated at 7.0 as the low- est score. Performance ratings are
a necessary, but not a fully suffi cient basis for setting organizational priorities. The other dimension of priority-setting is determin- ing the impact of specifi c programs and services on
*Nearly half of respondents participate in Rifl e.
Stakeholder Commitment. Impact analysis allows lead- ership to make strategic re- source allocation decisions by focusing on areas that will yield the greatest return. Impact is measured by statistically analyzing the relationship (correlation) between Program/Service Area Performance Ratings and Commitment Index rat- ings. Correlation measures the extent to which: • those who are highly committed are the same people who give higher ratings to a given program/ser- vice area, and
• those who are not highly committed are the same people who give lower ratings to a
given program/ service area. The higher the correla-
tion coeffi cient (max. of 1.0), the stronger the relationship between a program/service area and Stakeholder Com- mitment. Priority (high cor- relation) areas are:
• Youth development • Stakeholder commu- nication
• Coaching education • Fundraising • Leadership – Board & Staff
By focusing attention on these areas, USAS can ex- pect to increase its stake-
30 USA Shooting News | March 2015
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68