Minimum Expectations for Chapters

[Kevin]

Sigma Phi Epsilon, as a national fraternity, has zero tolerance for a lot of things, alcohol abuse and mediocre chapters included. (I'm not trying to insult the bros at W&L, I'm just stating a point) About two years before I joined, our chapter had a membership of about 24 men two semesters in a row, and nationals put them on notice to close. We got our numbers up, and we're been fine ever since. A few times, we've been told by our Regional Directors that we need to increase numbers, but we've never been formally put on notice to close. HQ has never been shy about pulling a chapter's charter if they feel it is needed. I guess since we feel we are the leaders in the fraternity world, we must always be improving, so HQ is sometimes harsh

After reading this in another thread, I began to think about a program my fraternity recently implemented. It is a points system that is used to identify chapters in need of extra assistance -- possibly used to flag floundering chapters for closing.

While I do see in this case that Sig Ep has minimum expectations of chapters, I don't see that they are being very clear to their chapters about what is expected. Is this problematic? (my perspective is based entirely on the quoted post above)

What other GLO's have implemented similar programs that identify areas that chapters must improve and succeed in to keep their charters? What kinds of standards do you have to meet? Do you think it's a good idea? Has the program been successful?