yknot

My point in this Scouts vs. Sports thread is that most families/kids interested in youth sports type activities are not going to be interested in scouting no matter how many free nights they have available.* That's because the activity doesn't appeal much to a lot of them in the first place. A few hours of possible fun on a monthly camp out isn't what they are looking for. Another point is that sports exclusivity to the degree claimed by scouters is largely a myth. There are regional differences but opportunities for play at middle school and high school levels have only expanded, both in and out of school. Specialization, injury/rest protocols, tiered programs/leagues, freshman teams, and emerging sports have increased roster sizes and broadened options across the board. Ages also don't really align -- if you're talking about JV or Varsity play, a significant percentage of scouts have already moved on from scouting by then. Sports is not keeping them from scouting. If you are talking cub scout or cross over ages, take a look at the mandatory requirements for AOL. The most appealing active adventure, Outdoors, has practically no actual activity prescribed in it. There is not much there to appeal to an active 10 year old. That is why scout membership is declining, not because of youth sports. It is wasted energy for scouters to be distracted by sports instead of focusing on why scouting itself isn't more appealing to youth and families. Another observation as a parent volunteer in both youth sports and scouts is that too many adults in scouting want the program to be what they think "kids today" need vs. just serving youth. For a supposedly youth led organization, adults layer an awful lot onto the program and it has made it stultifying in some aspects. *Shorter statured basketball players, even gifted ones, start having free nights once the height equation kicks in. You don't see a huge wave of them showing up in scouts in middle school and early high school though. They generally transition to another sport just as you are looking at football. What would scouting have to do to make the activity more appealing to your basketball player than football?

Things are different depending on where you are. Juniors who don't make varsity can still play JV in most cases. Some of those juniors won't make Varsity as seniors, but there are other extracurricular options and most of them will still see three good years of play at the high school level. You are doing what most scouters do -- focus comparisons on the single, final, high school senior year of a student athlete's entire career. It's even less relevant when you look at how many scouts are not even active or in scouting by that age. As far as rosters, baseball, soccer, football, and even basketball carry pretty large numbers. We haven't talked about Lacrosse or Winter ice hockey. In regions where those sports are common, they can carry even bigger rosters -- 20 to 30. There are also plenty of situations in scouting where youth can't make the "cut" for something -- activities that have limited head counts or prerequisites that are harder for some kids to meet for whatever reason. And if you are in a unit that is Eagle or First Class First Year focused, which many are, scouts can absolutely get left behind by peers if they miss things. I don't see much point in attacking youth sports for scouts' membership decline. I think it's irrelevant. Issues with scouting are why it is in decline. Trying to blame sports is a nonproductive distraction away from those issues in my opinion.

I don't understand the math here. Rosters for most varsity level team sports are 20-25 kids -- baseball, basketball, soccer. If your eligible demographic is 200 kids, that's at least 10% of the grade. But that's also probably 50% of the hopeful demographic that actually wants to play the sport. Not every kid in the grade wants to play a sport or make the commitment to play it at such a competitive and all consuming level, but scouting seems to like to assume that everyone does. There are also plenty of nonschool options for kids that don't make Varsity cuts and they are not all high end travel. Like scouting, there are teams and leagues at all levels of play. Do a certain percentage of kids and parents aspire to be the star starting player in a sport and pursue it that way? Yes, of course, but scouting seems to like to exaggerate that number to blame declining interest in scouting on sports.

It's true the high cost of volunteering in scouting is often unacknowledged, especially when compared to other youth activities. This is part of the value perception equation. It's also not as simple as thinking parents want to dump and run. Potential volunteers who are used to operating in more functional organizations find the systemic dysfunction in scouting incomprehensible. The onboarding experience in most youth activities is efficient and user friendly. Trying to onboard in scouts can be an ordeal. That makes the first point of entry a complete turn off for a lot of competent adults. Not necessarily dumping kids but running backwards away from dysfunction.

I partly agree but it's kind of a chicken and egg situation. Value perception is lacking because the program is so difficult to deliver that quality is inconsistent and often poor. But even when well administered there are multiple aspects of the program that no longer work well, appeal to, or provide comparative value to an increasingly large demographic.

I understand what's out there very well. Problems with value perception is why scouting is declining.

During Covid, membership at one point was at about 655,000, so he's probably right that overall scouting eventually clawed back about 260,000 post Covid. Scouting hasn't, however, added 260,000 in the past year.

There is no point comparing the costs of scouts to sports, it's a waste of time and not relevant to why most people pursue either activity. The costs for both are all over the map depending 1) where on the map you are, and 2) what level of involvement you are at. You can absolutely find travel leagues that are less than scouting. There are many access points and participation tiers. You can spend $10K or you can spend $1K. In many cases when you break down the fees and the hours involved in each activity, scouting has a higher per hour cost than sports and that's why a lot of families see it as a better value and use of their time. Both activities are great for kids at whatever level you can afford them and dependent on their interests and how that fits in with the family time and budget. Scouting needs to focus on listening to why more kids don't choose it.

I don't know exact national membership numbers but the latest I saw from earlier in the fall was around 915,000 and that was down about 90,000 from the same point the year before. There are some district positions that can access the membership totals on an ongoing basis and would know what the current number right now is. There used to be someone on here who would post them but I haven't seen him/her in awhile.

I couldn't agree more. The increasing focus in scouting on earning more well marketed advancement bling in talkfest meetings vs. doing something active, preferably outdoors, is such a self evident turn off for youth. I cannot comprehend this perspective at all.

I think you are choosing this hill to die on for some reason. If it works for your youth, great. But you can Google troops and units all over and see for yourself that many very healthy, active units, including ones spotlighted by BSA/SA, follow school schedules as they have done for decades and do great. Not meeting every single week is not a relevant cause of scouting's decline.

I have to believe the vast majority of units probably follow school schedules to a greater or lesser degree for simply pragmatic reasons. And most units can still manage to keep scouts engaged and active without a formal meeting every single week. People have posted examples here. There is generally plenty to engage scouts over a summer break, from camp to high adventure or volunteering. When units are failing, it's because of a hundred other problems that currently exist in scouting.

Two weeks? I'm really struggling to see that, especially over holiday weeks when there is so much else going on.

It really doesn't have bearing on anything if units meet a few more weeks or few less weeks in the course of a year and isn't an indicator of unit health. This is a mindset that has been pushed by National moreso for marketing, membership, and financial reasons than for any real reason.

Some units just follow local school district calendars because it affects meeting locations or, for certain families, school holiday closures affect child care, transportation, etc. It's not new or linked to burnout. It's just local convention in some places.