The Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors Membership

The Association of 

Fraternity/Sorority 

Advisors Membership 

What We Know About Our 

Members and Why It Matters 

Mark Koepsell 

Ari Stillman

AUTHORS 

Mark Koepsell, Executive Director, The Association of 

Fraternity & Sorority Advisors 

Ari Stillman, Director of Research & Assessment, The 

Association of Fraternity & Sorority Advisors 

SPECIAL THANK YOU TO THE FOLLOWING 

FOR PROVIDING INITIAL RESEARCH 

Teniell L. Trolian, Graduate Fellow, Center for Research 

on Undergraduate Education (CRUE); Doctoral 

Candidate, Higher Education and Student Affairs; 

Masters Student, Sociology, University of Iowa 

SPECIAL THANK YOU TO THE FOLLOWING 

REVIEWERS FOR PROVIDING FEEDBACK ON 

INITIAL VERSIONS OF THIS WHITE PAPER 

Dan Bureau, Ph.D., Director of Student Affairs Learning 

and Assessment, University of Memphis 

Charles G. Eberly, Ph.D.,Professor Emeritus of 

Counseling and Student Development, Eastern Illinois 

University 

Marybeth Drechsler Sharp, Ph.D., Executive Director, 

Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher 

Education (CAS) 

Dan Wrona, CEO & Project Leader, Rise Partnerships 

COPYRIGHT 

2016 © The Association of Fraternity | Sorority Advisors 

The Association of Fraternity | Sorority Advisors 

P.O. Box 1369 

Fort Collins, CO 80522-1369 

(970) 797-4361 

info@afa1976.org

Contents 

Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 

Gender & Racial Breakdown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 

Age & Tenure of Fraternity/Sorority Professionals . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 

Impact of Education on Salary Ranges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 

Discussion, Implications & Future Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 

Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

ASSOCIATION OF FRATERNITY/SORORITY ADVISORS 

Since the Association of Fraternity and Sorority Advisors (AFA) was founded in 1976, it 

has functioned to align the fraternity/sorority and higher education experiences by 

providing resources, professional development, and leadership to professionals and 

volunteers in the field. Per its vision, AFA strives to be the catalytic force in aligning the 

fraternity/sorority experience with the changing dynamics and enduring principles of 

higher education. In the 40 years since its inception, AFA has made monumental strides 

fostering the legitimacy of the profession, empowering its members to better advocate 

for student interests, and enabling its members to grow in knowledge areas related to 

the profession. However, little has been done to investigate the profession itself. 

This paper represents the first of a series of analytics examining who we are as an association. 

It draws demographic information from AFA membership data extracted in the 

fall of 2015 1 to paint a portrait of the membership. Unless otherwise noted, the sample 

size for each demographic consists of all registered members except those who did not 

submit information for a given category. We discuss salient facets of the data, flesh out 

its implications for the profession as applicable, and suggest future directions both for 

further data collection and for the advancement of the profession. 

As experiences in the field yield insights guiding our line of work, it becomes increasingly 

important to compile these discoveries and gather data pertaining to these insights 

to inform best practices. In order to advance as a profession, we need to be able to 

substantiate our suspicions and isolated or anecdotal experiences so we might better 

inform our actions. 

FINDINGS 

As of November 15, 2015, AFA has 1343 total members – 883 of whom are campus-based 

or headquarters professionals and account for the primary subsets and two thirds of 

the total AFA membership. 2 This is a marked increase from the 499 members recorded 

in 1981, after five years of existence, illustrative of the tremendous growth of the field 

(Smithhisler, 1996). 3 Of these 883 members, 626 (71%) are campus-based professionals 

and 227 (29%) are headquarters professionals. This proportion is significant, as it demonstrates 

the increased value of being an AFA member for headquarters staff given that 

the Association was initially created for campus-based professionals to convene and 

organize during an era in which newsletters were the main method of communication 

(Bureau, 2006, p.7). 4 Prior to the advent of AFA, the North-American Interfraternity Conference 

(NIC) and Fraternity Executives Association (FEA) were the main forces driving the 

fraternity world. 5 AFA’s scope of operations has allowed for growth in all facets of the 

field, from knowledge-sharing publications to informational services to job placement. 

While headquarters professionals presumably receive some training from their respective 

organizations, the AFA Annual Meeting offers numerous educational sessions for personal 

edification, Fireside Chats to enable headquarters staff/volunteers and campus-based 

professionals to meet face-to-face, and the centralized opportunity to meet and share 

thoughts and best practices with professionals in similar roles. 6 

1 This time period was chosen due to its proximity to the AFA Annual Meeting (AFAAM). This allowed time for analysis so a snapshot 

could be presented at the Business Meeting. Since AFA members tend to renew their membership in order to have discounted 

registration at the Annual Meeting, extracting this data at that time encourages higher data fidelity. 

2 The rest of the membership consists of a sizable minority of graduate students (166) and organizational volunteers (135), as well 

as faculty, speakers, staff (a nonessential category that will be removed for subsequent data collection), and those who did not 

specify their position type. For current figures, please reach out to the authors. 

3 Without access to the membership data from this time, however, we are unable to segment the 499 members into subcategories. 

For more information on the early years of AFA, see Bridget Guernsey Riordan’s chapter “The Role of the Association of Fraternity 

Advisors (AFA)” in the 2003 volume The Administration of Fraternal Organizations on North American Campuses: A Pattern for a 

New Millennium. 

4 While membership data does not go back far enough to track the rate of growth for headquarters members joining, it is sufficient 

to say that since AFA began only with the membership of campus-based professionals, having headquarters professionals (to say 

nothing of volunteers) comprise nearly a third of the Association’s membership is quite significant. 

5 While a precursor to AFA did exist, the “Fraternity Deans Association and the Fraternity Advisors Newsletter were combined into 

the Fraternity Advisors Association and the Fraternity Newsletter in 1974 (Riordan, 2003). The Fraternity Newsletter was renamed 

Perspectives in 1991. 

6 The AFAAM Evaluation Survey evidenced the opportunities to connect with campus-based professionals at institutions at which 

they have chapters, networking with other headquarters professionals with similar roles toward knowledge sharing, and the educational 

sessions stand among the top reasons that made attending the AFAAM invaluable. 

4 What We Know About Our Members and Why It Matters


GENDER & RACIAL BREAKDOWN 

Since the gender and racial background of headquarters staff are often a function of the 

organization being a fraternity or sorority and a culturally-based one or not, respectively, 

demographic information on gender and race presented herein will only reflect campusbased 

professionals. Of the 624 members who designated a gender, 59% identify as female 

and 41% identify as male (see Figure 1) – percentages consistent with the nearly 3:2 ratio 

of female to male students in student affairs master’s programs (Taub & McEwen, 2006) 

and supporting the perceived feminization of the profession (McEwen et al., 1991). The 

over-representation of women in the profession plays out in the preponderance of female 

entry- and mid-level campus-based professionals, though noticeably fewer in seniorlevel 

positions (see Figure 2). While higher numbers of women may suggest a greater 

likelihood for women to rise through the ranks to become senior-level administrators, 

the gap between the numbers could suggest gender bias at the top. Although we do not 

yet have figures for these data across time from which to offer an informed projection 

for the near future, we postulate that subsequent assessments will evidence a close on 

the gender gap in senior-level positions as suggested by the near even proportion of 

women to men among Vice Presidents for Student Affairs (VPSA). 7 

Of the 600 members who designated a race or multiple races, 73% identify as White, 14% 

identify as Black, and 9% identify as Latino/a. Given this sample (see Figure 3), we found 

an over-representation of Black campus-based professionals in senior-level positions. 

Despite comprising 14% of professionals in the field, Black professionals possess 28% 

of the senior-level positions or 17% of all Black professionals in the field. Comparing 

this to White campus-based professionals, who comprise 73% of the field and possess 

66% of the senior-level positions or 8% of all White professionals in the field, the raw 

numbers do not seem so disproportionate. Even so, there is much room to increase the 

racial representation in the field, especially amongst Latino/a and Asian demographics, 

both of which only have one senior-level professional in the field amongst those for 

whom we have data. 

7 In 2014, NASPA found that 47% of VPSAs are female while 49% are male (N=848). http://census.naspa.org/who-are-vpsa. This 

demonstrates a marketed different from a 1998 regional study that found more than twice as many male senior student affairs 

officers as female (N=76) (Kicklighter, 1998). 

What We Know About Our Members and Why It Matters 

5


AGE & TENURE OF FRATERNITY/SORORITY PROFESSIONALS 

The profession is heavily populated by younger members. For campus-based professionals, 

the average age is 32 with the most common age being 27 (see Figure 4). For 

headquarters staff, the average age is 31 and the most common age is also 27 (see Figure 

5). These figures suggest that many professionals leave the field after a brief tenure, as 

the data skews heavily to members in their late 20s and early 30s. Such a suggestion 

is corroborated in the student affairs attrition literature, which estimates that 50-60% 

of new professionals exit the field prior to their fifth year (Ronn and Hodges, 2007, 

p.370). Indeed, when looking specifically at longevity in the field among campus-based 

professionals (see Figure 6) and tenure in current position (see Figure 7), we can see 

evidence of this shift. Compared to industry norms, which estimate the percentage of 

student affairs professionals with five or fewer years experience between 15-20% (Ronn 

and Hodges, p.367), we find an oversaturation of young professionals in AFA – 57% for 

members with 0-5 years experience. While it must be qualified that this percentage was 

calculated using tenure in the Association as a proxy for tenure in the field, the low average 

number of years in a position (3.33) 8 and low median age of 30 for campus-based 

professionals suggest the sample to be accurate. Future research is needed to explore 

contributing factors to attrition in the field that they might be better understood and 

proactively addressed. 9 

HEADQUARTERS PROFESSIONALS 

8 By contrast, a 2003 study of mid-level student affairs professionals in various subfields (N=1,165) found the average length of time 

respondents were in their current position to be 8.47 years (Rosser & Javinar). When segmenting our sample only for mid-level 

campus-based professionals, the average time in current position rises to 3.99 years. Segmenting the other levels in the same fashion 

reveals that entry-level professionals average 1.76 years in their current position and senior-level professionals average 4.80 years. 

9 While research has been done on this topic, it is admittedly inconsistent since “researchers have studied different populations 

but generally have provided little detail about the characteristics of their subjects that may have significantly influenced the 

results” (Lorden, 1998, p.208). 



It is important to differentiate that measuring both tenure in a given position and time 

in the field as a whole are two very different indicators. As Lorden (1998) observes, “literature 

on attrition in most other professions simply does not exist. In fact, outside of 

student affairs, attrition typically refers to turnover, i.e. the rate at which people leave 

a specific job or organization rather than the profession as a whole.” This is to say that 

while tenure in a given position may reflect societal trends not to stay in a position for 

too long toward upward mobility, the fact that we measure attrition from the field indicates 

a more serious concern. While this phenomenon is problematic so far as Fraternity 

and Sorority Life offices or their equivalent “lose efficiency, consistency, and quality in 

the delivery of services, as well as the investment made in the knowledge base of the 


7


institution or unit” (Rosser & Javinar, 2003, p.825), the field of student affairs professionals 

has been growing nevertheless (Sandeen & Barr, 2006). What this means for Fraternity 

and Sorority Advisors in particular remains to be seen. 

The youthfulness of professionals in fraternity/sorority affairs and the short amount of 

time they tend to be in their positions suggest both a tremendous influx of young professionals 

into the field as well as their swift exodus from the field after a short duration. 

There are a number of possible explanatory factors for this, each touched upon in the 

literature, yet merit further exploration given our unique demographic. One possibility is 

there are many more entry-level positions than mid- and senior-level positions, resulting 

in fewer opportunities for promotion and therefore encouraging younger professionals 

to make lateral moves to other departments like Residential Life or Student Life in 

order to advance their careers (or leave higher education entirely) (Evans, 1988). Of the 

campus-based professionals who shared their position level, nearly 38% self-identified 

as entry-level, 54% as mid-level, and less than 8% as senior-level professionals. Part of 

the reason for the dearth of senior-level positions may be that few of them directly deal 

with fraternity/sorority life, as senior-level administrators tend to oversee multiple function 

areas and therefore have less reason to maintain membership in AFA. 

Insufficient compensation is another likely factor contributing to high turnover in the 

field, as it can lead to high stress and snowball into overall dissatisfaction with one’s 

job (Quinn, Staines, & McCullough, 1974). While cost of living and average salary differs 

from city to city, as a whole entry-level campus-based professionals average $30K-39,999 

annually, mid-level professionals average $40K-49,999, and senior-level professionals 

earn on average above $70K (see Figure 8). Given the paucity of senior-level positions, 

lower- and mid-level professionals who want to increase their salary seem to be left 

with little recourse but to leave Fraternity/Sorority Life in favor of better opportunities 

in higher education or elsewhere. However, Rosser & Javinar found that “student affairs 

leaders perceive that their salary levels are adequate” and the decision process to leave 

their position or field “may involve more consideration of the bread-and-butter working 

conditions than was previously acknowledged” (2003). Yet given how much the economy 

has changed since the study was conducted, a follow up study is merited. 

Another factor related to steadfast advancement that may contribute to attrition in the 

field is the perceived lack of professional development opportunities for professionals 

who are no longer entry-level (Rosser & Javinar, 2003). While the perceptions of our 

members and their relative satisfaction with their jobs will be the subject of an upcoming 

study, the literature strongly suggests that the lack of energy invested in mid- and 

senior-level professionals creates a “revolving door syndrome” deserving of concern 

(Evans, 1988, p.19). Other possible factors, which will be explored in subsequent studies, 

include more subjective (and complex) measures such as job satisfaction, job stress and 

burnout, staff to student ratio, congruency of expectations and experience, preparedness 

from graduate school, mentorship, perceptions of support from higher ups, and ability 

to transition into family life. 10 

10 It should be noted that “literature on attrition in most other professions simply does not exist” (Lorden, 1998, p.207) and only 

in student affairs are we concerned with the rate at which people leave a profession rather than a job or an organization (more 

commonly referred to as turnover). We would do well to ask, then, if attrition is really as bad as we think or if it is a normal, healthy 

part of one’s professional trajectory that allows for members to take their expertise and experience to other fields? 



THE IMPACT OF EDUCATION ON SALARY RANGES 11 

Fraternity and sorority professionals are highly educated (see Figure 9) and able to command 

a higher salary with requisite experience if they find themselves unable to advance 

in the field. 87% of campus-based professionals have earned a master’s degree. Including 

doctorates, that percentage rises to 94. For headquarters professionals, 48% earned their 

master’s degree and an additional 4% earned their doctorate. For campus-based professionals, 

given the vast majority that have a master’s degree, the data seems to indicate 

no relationship between educational attainment and salary range with the marginal exception 

of doctorates, which exhibit a preponderance in the highest income bracket (see 

Figure 10). However, when plotting a linear trend for each degree against salary ranges, we 

see a positive slope for master’s degrees (m=5.3) and doctoral degrees (m=3.3), while we 

see a negative slope for bachelor degrees (m=-0.4). These slopes indicate the trajectory 

for career growth as associated with each degree, with a master’s signifying the highest 

increase in earning potential and a doctorate signifying a slightly smaller increase. This 

is not to say, however, that there is a causal relationship between educational attainment 

and salary, as the former likely comes with professional experiences that largely dictate 

the latter, but simply that, objectively speaking, each degree increases earning potential. 

For headquarters professionals (see Figure 11), when plotting a linear trend in the same 

fashion, we see a positive slope for master’s degrees (m=1.86) and doctoral degrees (m=0.86) 

while also a negative slope for bachelor degrees (m=-1.98). Headquarters professions thus 

can come to expect a similar trajectory for career growth as campus-based professionals 

although to a lesser degree. Overall, when comparing campus-based (see Figure 12) 

and headquarters professionals (see Figure 13) and scaling for size difference, the salary 

ranges for each are roughly comparable with the exception of the senior-level $60K-69,999 

and $70K+ ranges. In these fields there is greater representation of headquarters professionals, 

a fact suggesting a higher earning potential for those at the top of the field given 

the financial affordances of private corporations. This does not suggest campus-based 

professionals are less likely to earn in that bracket, only that they may have to become 

a Director of Student Affairs, Dean of Students, or other higher level position in order to 

see such financial compensation. 

11 The data used for this analysis does not allow for distinction between public and private institutions. This is an important point to 

make, as each affords very different types of compensation and benefits packages. In addition, public institutions must expend their 

budget by the end of the fiscal year whereas private institutions allow for saving and reallocating funds, providing for markedly different 

approaches to financial management. Future data collection should record the public-private variable for comparative analysis. 


9





11


DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, & FUTURE RESEARCH 

From analyzing AFA membership data collected with each registration, we now have a 

better understanding of who we are as an association as well as a number of important 

points for departure that merit study in their own right. We know that a growing and sizable 

minority of our members are headquarters professionals, suggesting a direction in 

which AFA can improve its services so long as they do not eclipse AFA’s mission. We know 

that campus-based professionals are nearly two-thirds female, though women are represented 

disproportionately less in senior-level positions. Further investigation is needed 

to understand why this is the case. We also know that the vast majority of campus-based 

professionals identify either as entry-level or mid-level. Combining this knowledge with 

the knowledge of the female-minority in senior-level positions and the perceived lack 

of professional development opportunities for mid-level professionals, there is a niche 

opportunity to create a mid-level women’s professional institute for higher level career 

trajectories. 

We know that 73% of campus-based professionals identify as White, leaving much room 

to diversify the field. As homophily, or attraction of individuals to similar others, is often a 

factor in mentor relationships upon which encouragement to enter student affairs is often 

predicated (Taub & McEwen, 2006), diversifying the professional landscape is essential to 

attracting increasingly diverse individuals into student affairs graduate programs. Taub 

and McEwen (2006) suggest this could be achieved by recruiting diverse paraprofessionals 

and student leaders such as RAs, orientation assistants, and others in work-study roles 

that involve helping others into student affairs graduate programs. 12 

12 For a complete list of suggestions, see the full article. 



Data indicating the relative youthfulness and therefore inexperience of many fraternity/ 

sorority professionals and the inordinately high rate of turnover in positions and attrition 

in the field as a whole needs to be explored in earnest. While anecdotal narratives can 

provide helpful tributaries for more substantial waters, they are inadequate alone for 

illuminating the salient factors contributing to attrition in the field. Likewise, the inverse 

question should be asked: what statistically significant factors contribute to retention in 

the field? While literature does exist exploring this question with student affairs professionals, 

the fraternity/sorority advisors subgroup is unique among them and merits its 

own study. Understanding the professional, emotional, financial, and other factors that 

contribute both to attrition and retention will help the Association take proper measures 

and advocate accordingly just as institutions of higher learning seek to do the same for 

their students. 

We also learned that fraternity/sorority professionals are highly educated and that they can 

expect their earning trajectory to increase with each educational degree earned, although 

it is unclear how much increased earnings are a function of professional experience and 

position-level irrespective of educational attainment. Future research should design a 

study controlling for these variables to determine what measurable impact, if any, such 

attainment had on their normal compensation or other intangible benefits it afforded. 

LIMITATIONS 

While this brief overview of the campus-based and headquarters membership of the 

Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors tells us more about the profession than we 

had previously known, including validating suspicions we could previously only argue 

anecdotally, the present analysis suffers from several unavoidable limitations. Future data 

collection must be improved in order to produce increasingly valid and reliable figures going 

forward. This includes streamlining questions such as asking for exact salary amounts 

instead of ranges and removing unnecessary response categories that complicate analysis. 

It also includes introducing more discerning questions, such as the type of masters earned, 

public or private institution, office budget and source of funds, and ratio of full time staff 

to students overseen. Most importantly, we need the support of our members and their 

willingness to fill out their AFA membership information completely upon renewal. The 

more members who do so, the greater data fidelity we will have and consequently the 

greater our ability to advocate for the profession. As assessments such as the Fraternity 

and Sorority Experience Survey have risen in importance and popularity given their product 

of illuminating a holistic picture of the undergraduate member experience and chapter 

health, so too is it important for the Association to learn more about its members so as 

to better advocate for them. 

CONCLUSION 

Who will advocate for the advocates who give much of themselves but often feel alone in 

the struggle? We believe that the better AFA is able to support our constituent members, 

the more empowered these professionals will be to do good work in their communities. 

We have come a long way serving our students through our leadership, but we cannot 

neglect ourselves in the process. We have much still to learn and we hope you will continue 

to lend us your support, patience, and ideas going forward. We will continue to support 

the profession through research in order to advance AFA’s mission and better advocate 

for our members. 


13


REFERENCES 

Bureau, D. (2006, Winter). AFA: The First 30 Years. Perspectives, 7-10. 

Evans, N. J. (1988). Attrition of student affairs professionals: A review of the literature. 

Journal of College Student Development, 29, 19-24. 

Kicklighter, M. (1998, Spring). Burnout and related factors: Differences between women and 

men in student affairs. College Student Affairs Journal, 17(2), 80-91. 

Lorden, L. P. (1998, Spring). Attrition in the Student Affairs Profession. NASPA Journal, 35(3), 

207-216. 

McEwen, M. K., Williams, T. E., & Engstrom C. M. (1991). Feminization in student affairs: A 

qualitative investigation. Journal of College Student Development, 32, 440-446. 

Quinn, R. P., Staines, G. L., & McCullough, M. R. (1974). Job satisfaction: Is there a trend? 

(Manpower Research Monograph No. 30.) Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Labor. 

NASPA. (2014). [Graph illustrating the gender breakdown of VPSAs]. Who are VPSAs? Retrieved 

from http://census.naspa.org/who-are-vpsa 

Renn, K. A. & J. P. Hodges. (2007). The First Year on the Job: Experiences of New Professionals 

in Student Affairs. NASPA Journal, 44(2), 367-391. 

Riordan, B. G. (2003). The Role of the Association of Fraternity Advisors (AFA). In D. E. Gregory 

(Ed.), The Administration of Fraternal Organizations on North American Campuses: 

A Pattern for the New Millennium (pp. 179-195). Ashville, NC: College Administration 

Publications, Inc. 

Rosser, V. J. & Javinar, J. M. (November/December 2003). Midlevel Student Affairs Leaders’ 

Intentions to Leave: Examining the Quality of Their Professional and Institutional Work 

Life. Journal of College Student Development, 44(6), 813-830. 

Sandeen, A. & Barr, M. J. (2006). Critical Issues for Student Affairs: Challenges and Opportunities. 

San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 

Smithhisler, P. (1996). Perspectives 20th Anniversary. Perspectives, 23(7), 7-16. 

Taub, D. J. & McEwen, M. K. (2006). Decision to enter the profession of student affairs. 

Journal of College Student Development, 47(2), 206-216. 


THE ASSOCIATION OF FRATERNITY | SORORITY ADVISORS 

P.O. Box 1369 

Fort Collins, CO 80522-1369 

(970) 797-4361 • info@afa1976.org • afa1976.org

The Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors Membership

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?