January 15, 2013


 Member survey results remain private

​Posted Dec. 31, 2012  
The AVMA Executive Board declined to make public results of the AVMA Member Needs Assessment Survey during its Nov. 15-17, 2012, meeting in Schaumburg, Ill.
The survey, which is conducted every five years, received responses from about 2,600 veterinarians and 300 fourth-year veterinary students. The AVMA completed its analysis of the results in November 2011 and provided a summary of those findings for members this past summer (see JAVMA, Aug. 15. 2012).
The Association’s strengths as indicated by members in the survey included respondents’ high awareness of AVMA programs and services, agreement with the AVMA’s strategic priorities, and belief that the AVMA does a good job of advocating positions for veterinary medicine. That’s according to the summary report compiled by the Communications Division.
Challenges outlined by members in the survey involved the following:
  • Improving the governance structure so that individual members have a voice in their Association.
  • Providing a flexible, nimble, and forward-thinking culture for the AVMA.
  • Heightening the belief that AVMA leadership is keeping the Association vital and relevant to AVMA members.
The Member Services Committee recommended the board make available to the AVMA membership the complete results of the survey. Currently, only the summary report is available at http://atwork.avma.org.
“AVMA is striving to increase the transparency of the organization to its members. To this end, the Member Services Committee feels that providing access to the data and comments from this survey will increase both the actual and perceived transparency of the association, which will improve the value of AVMA to its members,” according to the recommendation background.
The board voted against the measure with no discussion. The board chair, Dr. Janver D. Krehbiel, later told JAVMA, “The recommendation did not pass, as (the survey results are) considered to be proprietary information and there was concern” about how the data might be misinterpreted.