Food For Thought...

[Stosh]

One also has to take into consideration an out-of-the-box possibility as to why the numbers are down.

 

Just because the numbers are down is not necessarily reflective of losing members, but maybe just not taking on as many members as before.  Our council's membership push has gotten rather feeble over the past few years.  A token gesture in Cub Scouts, nothing for Boy Scouts, and Venturing his just an attempt to retain older scouts and take on a few female friends.  None of which really will prop up the numbers.  

[Gone]

There are far too many factors to try to explain why membership numbers are down - and I believe it may be too simplistic to even try to pinpoint any one or two or three things to blame.  Membership levels from 2012 to 2013 down nearly 6% sounds an alarm in folks and the first reporting in the media is it must be linked to the change in policy towards gays, yet membership levels dropped by nearly the same percentage from 2011 to 2012 when the BSA announced it was keeping their former policy towards gays.

Not true!

 

The drop from 2011 to 2012 was 2.49% across Venture, Boy Scouts and Cubs. It was 6.10% from 2012 to 2013 and 6.80% from 2013 to 2014. That's based on reported membership statistics from BSA which was sourced in the other thread.

 

Membership levels dropped from 2010 to 2011.  They dropped from 2009 to 2010.  Search enough and you'll find stories about how the scouts are holding on despite declining numbers going back to the mid-2000's.

They've dropped every year since 1998. The point was that the average drop from 1998 to 2014 has accelerated in 2013. As others have pointed out, there are other historical changes to policy which may have impacted membership numbers prior to 1998.

 

The Girls Scouts have tried to understand the reasons behind the decline in their membership, and the explanation that much it it is likely related to changing economic stability in individual households sure does make sense.

Economics was on of SEVERAL factors which the Girl Scouts used to explain their membership drop. See the article posted and some of the other explanations posted already.

 

I'm pretty sure the BSA has also studied it as well but just haven't released the information, perhaps believing it's better for the media and volunteers to speculate.  I suspect that they may be seeing a lot changes in economic stability, in competition, in relevancy (they sure are making a big push for STEM - that is not just coming out of the blue, folks), and potentially competing forces within membership policy.

I don't know why you are sure they are doing this. There is ZERO discussion about it in their annual report, nor is there any mention of such a detailed analysis being done when you look at their membership objectives and strategic plan. Hoping for them (BSA) to do such an in-depth analysis does not mean it will happen.

 

Could it be the gay issue?  Maybe that's part of it, but given that a nearly 6% drop in membership equates to about 160,000, and total membership of the "robust competitor" Trail Life is 21,000, there must be something more there.  We've heard about a lot of CO's dropping units, but we've also heard of a lot of new CO's replacing those that dropped and lot of folks transferring to other units.

Overall unit numbers are dropping. This was posted in the other thread. From 2012 to 2014 we lost over 4,000 units across Boy Scouts, Cubs and Venturing. The 2013 to 2014 numbers show that trend continued. The 2014 to 2015 numbers were supposed to be in last month's annual report but were delayed.

 

Percentage wise, the biggest drop off was in Tiger Cubs so it's wuite possibile a lot of new folks that would have joined didn't because of the new policy, but keep in mind that there were a lot of people who said they wouldn't allow their sons to become Cub Scouts until the BSA opened up adult membership - I'm not sure we can quantify if either of those groups were in the majority or if it was a wash between them.

Well if Mr. Gates does what he said he would do, we will soon be able to test your theory that there's some suppressed ground swell of parents and kids that will make up for the near 8% drop in Tiger enrollment. I doubt is seriously. I think more likely explanation is that many of the parents in that age category cannot be bothered to volunteer and put in the effort.

 

There have been all kinds of stuff tossed out here.  It's the BSA banning things that we used to be able to do (I suspect that's a reference to the water gun silliness - except that is nothing new - the BSA has said for at least 35 years that squirt gun fights weren't officially allowed - so why is it a big deal now?).

Disallowing the use of water guns is not likely to keep large numbers of people out of Scouting. It is more likely more political issues like women and gays.

 

Seems to me it's become real easy to scapegoat National for the failure of local troop programs and its become real easy to scapegoat Council and District for recruiting failures.  I firmly believe that the propensity that society has for finding anyone else to blame except for ourselves over the last 30 years has eaten away at Scouting as well.  Problems with recruiting, with attracting and retaining Scouts?  It surely can't be the unit's problem, it must be National's policies, or Council's failure to recruit.

National is at fault because they own the "brand". Damage the brand, everyone gets hurt. Look at Burger King as an example. You get food poisoning at one in New Orleans the ones in Houston also take a hit. So national has some skin in this game. So do councils/districts. Their very mission is to train leaders and keep units healthy. When membership drops overall, they've failed in their mission. That's not scapegoating, that's holding the right people accountable for their failures.

 

Do units have skin in this game? Absolutely!! But they can ONLY control their unit. If they are successful in keeping members, they do so IN SPITE OF national/council/district, not because of them.

Edited June 12, 2015 by Bad Wolf

[JoeBob]

Overall unit numbers are dropping. 

 

It would be interesting to see if the units that disappeared had decent numbers (ie - added to Trail Life's 20,000) or shrank to oblivion.

[Gone]

It would be interesting to see if the units that disappeared had decent numbers (ie - added to Trail Life's 20,000) or shrank to oblivion.

It would be, wouldn't it? BSA can barely posted complete stats year on year. I doubt they have such detail.

 

If I were a council or district executive I would be conducting "exit interviews" with unit leaders who leave, as well as with CO's that drop units or units that fold. That would be some interesting data.

Edited June 12, 2015 by Bad Wolf

[Stosh]

It would be, wouldn't it? BSA can barely posted complete stats year on year. I doubt they have such detail.

 

If I were a council or district executive I would be conducting "exit interviews" with unit leaders who leave, as well as with CO's that drop units or units that fold. That would be some interesting data.

 

Naw! that would be to revealing.  If BSA would listen more carefully, and that's difficult because of a lot of bias rantings that go along with it, but really listen to the concerns of the membership, they just might be able to pull things together.

 

If someone can actually figure out how to take away every excuse for leaving, they couldn't leave.  

[MattR]

I agree with Calico that it's all local. If the scouts are having fun and are getting something out of it then they'll make time to keep going. I also agree with Eagledad that the new adults are clueless. The model of training them has to improve.

 

I'm the perfect example. I was in a lousy troop as a kid during my older years and did not see any of the GBB stuff. Even though I was an SPL I was beyond clueless. As an adult I saw a certain magic in scouts and knew it was a good thing. Great, so where do I go for help? I repeated what I saw in my troop but I knew that wasn't working. I asked my commissioner, I went to Woodbadge, and I still got nowhere. I joined here and got some really curt responses the first time around, mainly because I didn't know the right questions to ask. I reread all the manuals and even picked up some books. I just kept plugging away at it because I'm stubborn. That model will not work.

 

I realize that a lot of people here have seen it working for a long time and it's all second nature but it's not at all obvious if you haven't seen it. If National could better support/prepare those people then all the other problems would solve themselves.

[skeptic]

Actually, in regard to surveys as to lost members, it is a part of the on-line recharter process.  But, how many accurate answers they may receive in the section "Why did they leave?" on the recharter paperwork is a big question for sure.  Some of the older charter info I have seen had similar surveys, but many times they were left completely blank, even then.

[eagle77]

  Some really good opinions and ideas on this. Now, what if their are other councils out there that did or are doing the same thing, or similar to what was going on in Alabama? How many of the members that National says it has are actual members? How many are "ghost members"? I think until those questions are asked, anything concerning the decline percentage is just speculation. What's saying that there aren't councils out there trying to "fix" things and are shaving "ghost members" off its rolls in a gradual manner as to not draw any attention to what was done in that council at one time?  So until National does a good house cleaning of its councils and SEs any number is just a speculation. I mean in all reality that 6% decline may only be a 2% or 3% decline in actual numbers. I know right now though its all we have to work with.

 

  In addition I think National needs to stop "tweaking" things and adding new things to the program until they first make sure that the rules and trainings that are in place today are being followed and taught by the rules that they have set in the first place. Instead of worrying so much about the public image, National needs to improve its image amongst its own membership. Once that is done the public image will look better too. Can they please all? NO, but getting a better rep with its own members would be a good start.

 

  I've seen on these forums before and truly believe that until National runs the corporate part of our program under the same Oath and Law that we members are told to live by things will not improve.

[Stosh]

Having worked in a council office, I know how important making quotas are.  Obviously one's upward mobility and merit pay increases are directly linked to such arcane measurements.  So, along with the practices in place and the human tendency to answer the call to temptation, it is only natural that corruption can easily follow.  

 

Gee, isn't this how government works?

 

OMG, non-profits like the United Way have had these same issues!

 

The local church down the street had to just let their pastor go for questionable reasons?

 

And who says graft and corruption are restricted to just the big cities, big government and big business!!!!

 

Wake up and smell the coffee.  Once reality sets in, you will at least know what your dealing with, but don't be surprised it isn't as idealistic as you think it should be. 

[Gone]

Some really good opinions and ideas on this. Now, what if their are other councils out there that did or are doing the same thing, or similar to what was going on in Alabama? How many of the members that National says it has are actual members? How many are "ghost members"? I think until those questions are asked, anything concerning the decline percentage is just speculation. What's saying that there aren't councils out there trying to "fix" things and are shaving "ghost members" off its rolls in a gradual manner as to not draw any attention to what was done in that council at one time?  So until National does a good house cleaning of its councils and SEs any number is just a speculation. I mean in all reality that 6% decline may only be a 2% or 3% decline in actual numbers. I know right now though its all we have to work with.

The problem is, the sample council numbers out there show that they revise their numbers further downward after they do their mid-year adjustment. Not one year since 1998 were the Boy Scout numbers revised up.

 

We discussed this in another thread, many councils can't get our rosters correct. Mine for this year was barely 50% correct...and we made sure we gave them 100% clean paperwork.

[Peregrinator]

Historically, BSA membership numbers are not reliable. 

Any self-reported numbers are going to be less than completely reliable.

[Stosh]

This is why businesses do outside audits of such things as books and inventories.  It just keeps things honest.

[qwazse]

Actually, in regard to surveys as to lost members, it is a part of the on-line recharter process.  But, how many accurate answers they may receive in the section "Why did they leave?" on the recharter paperwork is a big question for sure.  Some of the older charter info I have seen had similar surveys, but many times they were left completely blank, even then.

there are Reasons for quitting not that are not on the rechartering form, my most popular one:

Refusal to pay the increased registration fee. For the money, I can go hiking an camping independently now, thank you very much.