A new survey of association and components leaders has found that associations tend to overemphasize geographical locations instead of other, potentially more valuable connections that are a stronger draw for members.

The 2025 Chapter Performance & Benchmarking Report, released earlier this month by re:Members and Mariner Management and Marketing, is based on a survey of 250 association leaders and 1,132 chapter leaders from 25 association chapters. The findings suggest a disconnect between how associations and chapters perceive their success. Though 93 percent of association staffers say their chapters are providing local connections, chapter leaders themselves give low marks to their programming and overall performance.

But association and chapter leaders agree that chapter volunteering is stagnant: 77 percent of staff and 63 percent of chapter leaders say “insufficient qualified volunteers” as their biggest chapter-related challenge.

Mariner’s Peter Houstle said that sticking to the traditional geography-based chapter model is limiting the kinds of connection the association can deliver.

“The underlying assumption about what it means to have a local presence and what community means—they don’t have relevance that people are looking for in the 21st century,” he said. “So I think there may be some fundamental changes in how associations think about what it means to create community. Geography is just one dimension of community. There are other aspects of community.”

The report acknowledges that a geographic focus can be meaningful for associations highly involved in local advocacy, but recommends a “portfolio approach” around connections. “Meeting members where they are shouldn’t mean geography by default,” the report said. “Lead with members. Understand their motivations and interests and match with the right approach, which sometimes is geography and sometimes not.”

For instance, the report cites research that found Gen Z more strongly believes that “community” represents “a sense of belonging” (66 percent) than “physical proximity” (22 percent).

Mariner’s Peggy Hoffman, FASAE, CAE, suggests that as one meaningful step, component training should focus more on community-building instead of schooling chapter leaders on the mothership’s strategic plan.

Associations should support chapters’ skills, she said, “around bringing community together, facilitating good conversations, facilitating relationships—all those soft skills. They should also be giving them data about what their members are saying that they want or don’t want, and then training them on, How do I think differently about the products and services I’m offering? It’s teaching them some strategic thinking skills, not strategic planning.”

The report includes four brief case studies of associations that have retooled their component structures. In each case, the report said, “the solution removed or reduced the administrative burden for volunteers while eliminating operational inefficiency and data inconsistency by introducing a shared management system.” 

Reducing management tasks allows member groups to better cohere, Houstle said, and focus on bigger goals. “Pulling the organizational metrics off the radar of volunteer leaders is really important, because then they can begin to focus on the mission metrics,” he said. “That’s why they raised their hand in the first place.”