Review of Association Working Group Surveys
Survey #3 – Summary of Content
Forty individuals voting on behalf of their organizations participated in the Association survey just completed last night. Once again, as you will see below, the will of the group was remarkably congruent is causing solid forward momentum toward the creation of the Association
Time and Location of Drafting Convention
The first choice for time and location of the By-Laws Drafting Convention was Chicago, Illinois, on April 27-29.
Out of a maximum of 200 preference (weighted average) points for location, the results were: Chicago (127 pts.), Philadelphia (103), Denver (67), Allentown (20), and Oklahoma City (13).
Out of a maximum of 120 preference (weighted average) points for time, the results were: April 27-29 (77 pts.), May 11-13 (65), March 30-April 1 (48).
Given the preferences stated above, the Working Group will pursue arranging for the meeting in the first choice for time and place and will notify the Working Group about logistics for this meeting as soon as possible.
Defining the Core Membership of the New Association
The results of question #4 which asked Working Group members to state the minimum hours of programming a program would need to provide in order to be included in core membership were: 87.5% (35 of the 40 respondents) voted for 5 hours or more; the most common answer given was 10 hours (14 of the 40 respondents) and the weighted average of the supermajority (75%) was 8.4 hours of instruction.
The results of question #5 which asked Working Group members whether peer instruction should be included as a criterion for core membership were 2.48 on a 1-5 scale (the lower the number, the higher the respondents’ agreement). Strong agreement would require a vote of less than 2; therefore, the group has determined that peer instruction should not be included as a criterion for core membership in the Association.
Question #6 asked respondents to suggest other possible criteria for core membership that had been previously reviewed by the group. Of the 17 responses, suggestions included: striving toward musical excellence; recommended administrative and fiscal standards (such as audits, financial ratios, and 990 submission); community engagement and frequent performances; evaluation standards; commitment to collaborate with other network programs; parental engagement; being a non-profit with an independent board; strong parental engagement; community-based location; commitment to work with children a minimum of 3 years; and support for academic success/tutoring.
Given these suggestions, the Working Group will be surveyed to see if the group wishes to add any of these to the list of recommended criteria for core membership.
Name of the New Association
The results of Question # 7 asking for respondents to cite their preference for the name of the new Association (choosing from a list of 12 names that had previously been suggested by Working Group members) showed that 30 of the 40 respondents (75%) gave El Sistema USAas one of their top three choices. Over half of the working group members rated El Sistema USA their first choice; 4 gave it their second choice; 4 gave it their third choice.
The next closest names chosen were Sistema USA (with 16 votes: 7-1st;6-2nd;3-3rd); National Association of Social Action Through Music (with 12 votes: 4-1st,4-2nd, 4-3rd); and National Association of El Sistema Programs (with 10 votes: 4-1st;2-2nd,4-3rd).
These results show both a supermajority preference as well as a disproportionate relative preference (in comparison to other names) for the name El Sistema USA.
Question #8 requested any other questions or comments on possible names and the responses were not indicative of any strong agreement or disagreement with the above. However, one comment was made that he/she believed that the NEA has refused to fund organizations with the El Sistema name due to perceived connections with Venezuela.
Possible Categories of Auxiliary Membership
Question #9 asked respondents to give their agreement (1=strong agreement; 5= strong disagreement) with possible inclusion of the following categories of non-core associative membership. (Note: the lower the results, the stronger the agreement with inclusion; a number of 2 or less indicates agreement.) Respondents’ results were:
Other similar youth music programs that do not quite fit core membership: 1.9
Programs similar to core that are in development: 1.6
Individual supporters: 1.9
Student members: 1.6
University training programs: 1.8
Youth orchestras: 2.6
Adult and/or other orchestras: 2.6
Foundations and other sponsorship organizations: 1.9
Community partners: 2.0