Statistics in Scouting - retention of new scouts and other points of interest

[blw2]

I found a couple comments in another thread very interesting.  I thought it could make for an interesting discussion....

 

....

I think we're about the same rate of loss after one year from former cubs vs. non-cubs. The difference? With former cubs, it's usually the parent's decision over the boy's objection. With non-cubs, it's usually the boy's decision over the parent's objection.

 

 

Interesting.  I think our loss rate is around 10% (1 in 10).  If they go on a campout before the summer after crossing over, they stay.  If they don't camp with us in the first three months (April, May and June) or go to summer camp, there is a 50% chance they drop out.

 

 

I'll bet there could be lots of different ideas and twists.  These are regarding retention of new scouts, which happen to be maybe the most interesting thing for me right now as our den is "crossing over" in about 2-1/2 weeks.

 

Any more empirical observations out there?  statistics can be made up, or I'll be there have been quite a few more scientific analyses done that some of you might reference....

 

[Krampus]

I'd agree with @@Hedgehog. If they don't camp more than twice in the first few months before summer camp (July) they will likely not recharter. Looking back our number is about 43% chance of that happening. We have found being more selective in recruiting has helped keep that number down.

 

We also have a "policy" that new scouts are paired with their friends coming in, even if it means lopsided patrols. Boys are more likely to stay in scouting if paired up with friends. Lone wolf scouts tend not to last long. We've pair these guys with Guides but that does not always work.

[qwazse]

@@blw2, Each troop is its own little experiment. Sometimes the stuff national puts out meshes with what we've seen and we say "Oh, yeah!" Other times we just go, "Huh?" But even within one unit, after a few years, you get a sense how things go and along come a bunch of boys who defy your expectations.

 

One anecdote that may be of interest to you (and I've reported elsewhere on this forum), because most of your parents will have an "advancement pump" primed:

 

In our troop, when we pushed "1st class by first year" the same percentage of boys advanced to higher ranks and nearly had the same age of obtaining Eagle. When we dropped that program and let boys advance to first class whenever (although we try to encourage boys to at least knock off one rank per year), we still had the same relatively high percentage reach Eagle. We did not have any different rate of drop-out among those who advanced to 1st class in one year vs. those who took 4 years to earn it!

 

My takeaway: tweak the program, if you must, at the skills and activities level -- not at the rate-of-advancement level.

[blw2]

....We also have a "policy" that new scouts are paired with their friends coming in, even if it means lopsided patrols. Boys are more likely to stay in scouting if paired up with friends. Lone wolf scouts tend not to last long. We've pair these guys with Guides but that does not always work.

 

This parallels what my gut has been telling me whenever these discussions roll around to shuffling patrols, forced mixes to have age spread (or whatever), etc...

It just makes sense.... boys just want to hang with their circle of friends.  Some boys are social and can mingle out more and have a bigger circle, while others aren't and have a small core group of friends.

 

@@qwazse, you're right.  That is interesting.  To me, it just makes sense, so I can believe that it's generally true

[Krampus]

This parallels what my gut has been telling me whenever these discussions roll around to shuffling patrols, forced mixes to have age spread (or whatever), etc...

 

We used to use an older boy/young boy patrol concept. We grouped 11-14s in one set of patrols, 14-17 in an older boy patrol set up. Eagles in a third. The intent was to obviously group like-aged kids together in the hopes of developing the esprit de corps one would want in a vibrant unit. The result (over a 9 year period) was anything but. The older scouts never engaged, felt/acted elitist or simply went off on their own. Many factors contributed to this result. We tried tweaking the concept, adding accountability for the older scouts, etc. Did not work. As soon as went went to integrated patrols (11-17) AND instituted a rewards-based "promotion" in to a Leadership Corps-style unit for older scouts who demonstrated continued leadership, then things got better.

 

Bringing this back to younger scout retention; this last program change GREATLY increased younger scout activity levels and retention. It also increased OLDER scout retention. the young guys wanted to be like the older guys. The older guys wanted to been seen as rock stars to the younger guys. Win-win.

 

That worked for us. As @@RememberSchiff says, your mileage may vary.  

[blw2]

a follow-up question to that @@Krampus

would you say that you are a troop level unit or a patrol level unit?

....meaning does more stuff happen on a patrol level or on the troop level?

.... do your scouts form ad hoc patrols for campouts, or do they always stick with the patrols they are in?

.... or put another way, who is the most "important" leader in the troop.... the SPL or the PL?

 

I don't mean these question judgmentally, I'm honestly curious.  I'm unsure, but I suspect that these may play a role in the patrol structure you outlined above.

[Krampus]

a follow-up question to that @@Krampus

would you say that you are a troop level unit or a patrol level unit?

....meaning does more stuff happen on a patrol level or on the troop level?

.... do your scouts form ad hoc patrols for campouts, or do they always stick with the patrols they are in?

.... or put another way, who is the most "important" leader in the troop.... the SPL or the PL?

 

I don't mean these question judgmentally, I'm honestly curious.  I'm unsure, but I suspect that these may play a role in the patrol structure you outlined above.

 

Interesting. I'd say it works as both really. Patrols are the meat of how we organize and participate in events. They come up with the ideas, are responsible for their execution and for performing various things. All that bubbles up to the PLC and is spread across the troop. Patrols stay patrols at all events. The PLs are the leaders. The SPL manages the PLs. They are a team that run the troop.

 

The Leadership Corps we have developed is built along the lines of the old fashioned group BSA once had. It is a virtual patrol of sorts. They camp as a group but they eat and work with their assigned patrols; a PL mentor if you will. Their job is to be the elite older scouts which demonstrate strong leadership and core Scouting skills. The LC gets some freedom to do what they want but only after doing their duty for their PLs. To get in to the LC you need to demonstrate leadership and strong scouting skills. Just being 15 and Life won't get you in.

[Eagledad]

I've studied this subject for years and watched our council member ship numbers, national numbers and just plain talked to a lot of people to understand the whole of the subject. First, it must be noted that the BSA loses more scouts during the first year troop scouts than any other age from Tigers to Venturing. At least it was that way until 5 years ago when I got out of that business. 

 

Next, National came out with a study around 1989 that showed that if scouts got to first class in their first year, they were likely to stay with the troop, aaaand, if the scout stayed with the troop a year, they were likely to stay several years.

 

My own study is that getting to first class has little effect of boys staying in the program, rather they stay with an active program that also typically encourages scouts to advance. But as some here already said, many scouts who don't advance quickly stay on as well. So it stands that the program is what attracts boys, not advancement by itself. Aaaaaand my data and experience show that if a scouts is still active after summer camp, you will likely keep him several years. The reason National can't get their one year number to months is because they can only  track yearly membership after rechartering, I tracked real time.

 

One of my beefs with National's 1989 data is that it was the motivation for creating New Scout Patrols (NSP), Venture Patrols, and the First Class in the First year program. All fine in theory, but the reality is that those changes shifted much of the control from the boys to the adults. Boy independence for directing their destiny in the program is heart of the classic scout program. Those changes inadvertently change that. 

 

AND, after all that, the data 20 year later in 2009 showed that the rate of loss for first year troop scouts is about the same. In fact, I was told once that the first year loss rate has always been the highest loss of scouts and has been and on going problem. National was wrong that same age patrols and advancement were the solution to the new scout dropping problem. If you aren't willing to consider that, than you will struggle to have an open mind for solutions.

 

So, what does it take to keep a new scout long enough that he buys into the program. Well after a lot of years of researching this, I and a few others concluded that the huge jump of going from an adult lead lifestyle all their life to a self independent decision making program where boys around your age are responsible for your health and safety is pretty scary. Very scary in fact. At first independence appeals to these new scouts who have been told by "adults" that they get to make their own decisions in the troop, but it doesn't take long to realize that living with your personal decisions, and more importantly having to live with your buddy decisions, may not be fun or in the scouts best interest. So, the scout starts looking for excuses to skip a meeting or two, then a campout and eventually several campouts. Summer camp is kind of the final straw. But interestingly enough scouts who attend summer camp are forced to endure the scouting lifestyle long enough that it starts to grow on them and they except it for the better things like, well like adventure.

 

So, what can a troop do to get the scout from adult led life to wondering by himself in the darkness. The best programs I've seen use a New Scout ASM who works close with the Patrol Leaders or Troop Guides to show the scouts how the boy run system not only works, but is kind of cool. Also the ASM and the PL/TG work as a team to show the new scout that PL/TG are in control and the ASM is the assistant to the PL/TG. The ASM is also a safety valve for the new scout so that when he gets uncomfortable with the program and still doesn't trust the youth led style, they can seek out a friendly trusted adult. But, the ASM will always defer and work with the patrol leader with the intent of helping the new scout see and learn to trust that the PL truly is the person responsible for his safety and welfare and that they are very capable. Safety and welfare are typically a new scouts concerns. How many times have new scouts urinated on their tent in the middle of the night because the darkness of the woods terrified them to go any farther?  

 

The trick to the ASM/PL relationship is that the ASM needs to gradually step back as the new scout gets more comfortable. We found that the ASM was pretty much finished after two or three months. 

 

Now we can go back and forth on New Scout Patrols or friends or mixed age patrols, but they don't really matter if the troop isn't dealing with the problem of getting the new scout comfortable with making independent decisions and that his safety and welfare are good in the hands of the other scouts. 

 

That is a very basic take on the subject from what I have learned over the years.

 

Barry

[resqman]

FCFY implies that the scout will be active enough to complete all the necessary requirements.  FCFY should not be a patrol/troop/adult goal.  The real goal should be an active troop.  Scouts stay if the there are fun, cool, different, challenging things to do.  Boring meetings, lack of outings will drive away scouts.  Fill meetings with learning and/or fun activities, the scouts will stay.  Offer at least one campout a month year round, scouts will stay.  If the "monthly campout" is really an activity where scouts happen to stay in a tent, so much the better.  IE; A weekend canoe trip where they campout overnight.  A hiking/backpacking trip, Rock climbing/rappelling, mountain biking, wilderness survival, No pot cooking etc.  If there is some activity or goal, the scouts will attend.  Even the older, jaded scouts will show up to do the activity.

 

We try to get the crossovers to attend at least 2 but preferably all 4 campouts between Feb crossover and June summer camp.  If we can get them thru a week of summer camp, they build strong friendship and patrol bonds.  They form a true team bond during the week of summer camp.  The few crossovers who don't attend summer camp, don't form the bond and often feel left out of the cliché.  Usually gone within 2 months.

[perdidochas]

I've studied this subject for years and watched our council member ship numbers, national numbers and just plain talked to a lot of people to understand the whole of the subject. First, it must be noted that the BSA loses more scouts during the first year troop scouts than any other age from Tigers to Venturing. At least it was that way until 5 years ago when I got out of that business. 

 

Next, National came out with a study around 1989 that showed that if scouts got to first class in their first year, they were likely to stay with the troop, aaaand, if the scout stayed with the troop a year, they were likely to stay several years.

 

I pretty much agree with this. Troops capable of First Class, First year pretty much are highly active troops that do a range of different activities.  I do agree that we lose most scouts in the First year in the troop (although our pack had a pretty big loss rate between sign up and the end of the first month--many boys that signed up and registered never even show up at the first den meeting (maybe 1/4 to 1/3).)

[Eagle94-A1]

 

 

Next, National came out with a study around 1989 that showed that if scouts got to first class in their first year, they were likely to stay with the troop, aaaand, if the scout stayed with the troop a year, they were likely to stay several years.

 

NONE (emphasis) of the data from the 1989 survey mentioned program. I was one of those who did as much research as possible at the time, which was pre-internet and was basically the booklet and supporting literature.

 

My own study is that getting to first class has little effect of boys staying in the program, rather they stay with an active program that also typically encourages scouts to advance. But as some here already said, many scouts who don't advance quickly stay on as well. So it stands that the program is what attracts boys, not advancement by itself. Aaaaaand my data and experience show that if a scouts is still active after summer camp, you will likely keep him several years. The reason National can't get their one year number to months is because they can only  track yearly membership after rechartering, I tracked real time.

 

Agree Summer camp is THE biggest way to retain Scouts. We are not the best troop out there, we do have some challenges in youth led and some boring meetings. BUT those who have gone to summer camp stay around.

 

Between active program, and I mean monthly outdoor activities, you will retain scouts, especially after summer camp.

 

One of my beefs with National's 1989 data is that it was the motivation for creating New Scout Patrols (NSP), Venture Patrols, and the First Class in the First year program. All fine in theory, but the reality is that those changes shifted much of the control from the boys to the adults. Boy independence for directing their destiny in the program is heart of the classic scout program. Those changes inadvertently change that. 

 

My troop experimented with NSPs in 1986 and it was an abysmal failure. We lost 50% of the new Scouts, and that was not the norm.  We went back to mixed aged patrols. And when a new, 8 man Troop tagged along with us, we had the same problems when we assigned a TG to them to get started: too much for one Scout to teach and we lost 3. When the two troops merged, we merged them into my troop's existing patrols and the 180 degree turnaround was phenomenal. 

 

In looking at the current literature, BSA recommends having an ASM assigned to them. I do not ever remember having an adult assigned to my patrol to work with me. And that notion smacks of Cub Scouts IMHO.

 

As for FCFY, many felt it focused more on rank than mastery of the skills. A lot of us hated doing away with the time requirements for T-2-1 because we felt it allowed time for the Scouts to truly master the skills.

 

As for Venture crews, now called Venture patrols, for us it was just a new name for the Leadership Corps. The creation of the  Venture HA pins, and later allowing the folks in the Venture crew to earn Varsity sports pins ( and vice versa) on the Varsity/Venture Letter Award was never really popular.

 

AND, after all that, the data 20 year later in 2009 showed that the rate of loss for first year troop scouts is about the same. In fact, I was told once that the first year loss rate has always been the highest loss of scouts and has been and on going problem. National was wrong that same age patrols and advancement were the solution to the new scout dropping problem. If you aren't willing to consider that, than you will struggle to have an open mind for solutions.

 

So, what does it take to keep a new scout long enough that he buys into the program. Well after a lot of years of researching this, I and a few others concluded that the huge jump of going from an adult lead lifestyle all their life to a self independent decision making program where boys around your age are responsible for your health and safety is pretty scary. Very scary in fact. At first independence appeals to these new scouts who have been told by "adults" that they get to make their own decisions in the troop, but it doesn't take long to realize that living with your personal decisions, and more importantly having to live with your buddy decisions, may not be fun or in the scouts best interest. So, the scout starts looking for excuses to skip a meeting or two, then a campout and eventually several campouts. Summer camp is kind of the final straw. But interestingly enough scouts who attend summer camp are forced to endure the scouting lifestyle long enough that it starts to grow on them and they except it for the better things like, well like adventure.

 

So, what can a troop do to get the scout from adult led life to wondering by himself in the darkness. The best programs I've seen use a New Scout ASM who works close with the Patrol Leaders or Troop Guides to show the scouts how the boy run system not only works, but is kind of cool. Also the ASM and the PL/TG work as a team to show the new scout that PL/TG are in control and the ASM is the assistant to the PL/TG. The ASM is also a safety valve for the new scout so that when he gets uncomfortable with the program and still doesn't trust the youth led style, they can seek out a friendly trusted adult. But, the ASM will always defer and work with the patrol leader with the intent of helping the new scout see and learn to trust that the PL truly is the person responsible for his safety and welfare and that they are very capable. Safety and welfare are typically a new scouts concerns. How many times have new scouts urinated on their tent in the middle of the night because the darkness of the woods terrified them to go any farther?  

 

The trick to the ASM/PL relationship is that the ASM needs to gradually step back as the new scout gets more comfortable. We found that the ASM was pretty much finished after two or three months. 

 

Now we can go back and forth on New Scout Patrols or friends or mixed age patrols, but they don't really matter if the troop isn't dealing with the problem of getting the new scout comfortable with making independent decisions and that his safety and welfare are good in the hands of the other scouts. 

 

The challenge I'm currently finding in my troop regarding NSPs is that A) the adults are to quick to jump in and help the NSP, and they never really get the chance to solve their own problems. and B) the youth keep coming to the adults with problems. Part of that  is that we have not really had good TGs IMHO.

 

That is a very basic take on the subject from what I have learned over the years.

 

.THANK YOU!

Barry

 

 

 

FCFY implies that the scout will be active enough to complete all the necessary requirements.  FCFY should not be a patrol/troop/adult goal.  The real goal should be an active troop.  Scouts stay if the there are fun, cool, different, challenging things to do.  Boring meetings, lack of outings will drive away scouts.  Fill meetings with learning and/or fun activities, the scouts will stay.  Offer at least one campout a month year round, scouts will stay.  If the "monthly campout" is really an activity where scouts happen to stay in a tent, so much the better.  IE; A weekend canoe trip where they campout overnight.  A hiking/backpacking trip, Rock climbing/rappelling, mountain biking, wilderness survival, No pot cooking etc.  If there is some activity or goal, the scouts will attend.  Even the older, jaded scouts will show up to do the activity.

 

 

This is where BSA missed the mark with the 1989 report and succeeding ones. "OUTING is three-fourths of ScOUTING" and "SCOUTING IS OUTING!" as Green Bar Bill said repeatedly. And if BSA can't even get the quote correct, as they didn't do in the current handbook, then you know the folks at National have lost touch.

 

Further, IMHO if you have an active troop, AND you get the Scouts to do their one month of exercises and show improvement, you SHOULD be able to get First Class in a year as "naturally as a suntan..." Heck I got 6 Scouts right now who only need to do the exercises and show improvement and they can go fro their T-2-1 BORs in 1 nite since they have been with the troop approx. 9 months now.  

 

 

We try to get the crossovers to attend at least 2 but preferably all 4 campouts between Feb crossover and June summer camp.  If we can get them thru a week of summer camp, they build strong friendship and patrol bonds.  They form a true team bond during the week of summer camp.  The few crossovers who don't attend summer camp, don't form the bond and often feel left out of the cliché.  Usually gone within 2 months.

[Eagledad]

NONE (emphasis) of the data from the 1989 survey mentioned program. I was one of those who did as much research as possible at the time, which was pre-internet and was basically the booklet and supporting literature.

 

Yes, that was a long time ago and I can't remember all my sources, a lot of what I was saying came from pros who were involved with the data.

 

Agree Summer camp is THE biggest way to retain Scouts. We are not the best troop out there, we do have some challenges in youth led and some boring meetings. BUT those who have gone to summer camp stay around.

 

I need to be careful how I say these things because this is an example of starting bad policies by saying it the wrong way (I can see it now, a rash of WB ticket items to make all the new scouts go to summer camp). Summer camp won't  sell a boy to a bad program, but it is a great place for the boy in a good troop to see how the program works and why it is something worth continuing. Your troop has something going for it to keep all those new scouts. 

 

As for Venture crews, now called Venture patrols, for us it was just a new name for the Leadership Corps. 

 

I did mean Venture Patrols. Do they not have those anymore? The Venture patrols were created so that older scouts 14 and older could form their own patrol. I think it is more harmful to the Troop program than the NSP because it takes the older scouts away from the younger scout right at their prime, and it prevents the older scouts from managing the whole troop program. As I've said before, a troops younger scout program depends on the quality of the older scouts part of the program. If you don't have older scouts, the troop is stuck in a young scout program, which is typically a First Class Skills program.

 

By the way, there was a rumor a few years ago that National was using the NSP and Venture Patrol to eventually split the program into two programs, 10 thru 13, and 14 thru 17. I don't know if it was true, but there was some angst about it on the forums.

 

The Venturing Crew program is another problem.

 

The challenge I'm currently finding in my troop regarding NSPs is that A) the adults are to quick to jump in and help the NSP, and they never really get the chance to solve their own problems. and B) the youth keep coming to the adults with problems. Part of that  is that we have not really had good TGs IMHO.

 

Yes, that is the way they have been doing it since the scout was born. The problem isn't that they can't change, it's finding someone who understands the problem and guides them toward change. It's a slow process that never stops because just as soon as you get most up to speed, a new group of Webelos with gung ho parents join. It makes good SMs into great ones.

 

Barry

[blw2]

Interesting post Barry. lots of stuff there to digest.  I'll have to followup later to read the responses after.... I'm in a bit of a hurry

My initial comment is this, regarding the 1st class in the first year thing....

 

Could it be that the scouts most likely to stay with the program just happened to be the ones most likely to work on and earn 1st class quickly?

kinda the chicken or the egg question....  The BSA study suggests that it's getting the rank is what held onto the boys....  just seems like it's at least just as likely the other way around.

[Krampus]

We are overlooking one important factor: Parents!

 

Their involvement (be it benign) like simply being there and volunteering, or more like a helicopter parent forcing their kid all the way to Eagle, plays a HUGE role in kids involvement in the program. Can be both good and bad.

[qwazse]

I'm pretty sure that for my mom and dad (and, in turn, for me and the Mrs.), the SM (warts and all) was one of the best people my kids could spend one hour a week plus a weekend a month with.

 

Regarding our boys who didn't make FCFY ... it wasn't the troop. It was usually one requirement. For one or two: the exercise; others, land navigation; others swimming. One scout, the lake just got into his head. We arranged for him to do it in a pool ... he said "Nope gotta pass it in the lake," and it took him to his fourth year at camp. I think the fact that everyone stood by each other regardless added value to the program.

 

The boys who did make FCFY? Well, there were video games to play, ...

 

One other thought. The boys who got homesick at camp and went home for family night. We lost most of those. I think a lot of other troops did too, 'cause the camp dropped family night from the program -- no complaints from the scouters. How 'bout you all?

Edited January 6, 2016 by qwazse