LDS Dropping Senior Youth Scouting

[Stosh]

I, too, view this as a money issue, not a programmatic issue.  Varsity and Venturing are two areas that BSA have been struggling with for some time now.  The numbers just aren't there.  Well, if the LDS has boys that are paper scouts, then they are wasting their money on a program that their members just don't use.  Why buy something no one is going to use?  So it affects 180,000 paper scouts.  That's no real loss of members other than on paper.  While our council has quite a number of Cub and Boy Scout units, it can count Venturing units on one hand.  Why are they casing after ghosts and why would anyone care of the ghosts disappeared....other than the fact that someone was paying for ghosts to be there in the first place.  I don't see this as a loss of ACTIVE membership, nor do I see it as any loss of camps.  After all, LDS boys from 11-14 will still need a summer camp to attend.  And as we all know, the older scouts have fumes they need to address as well as school, jobs, family, etc. etc. and aren't attending the camps anyway.

 

If I were the leader of an LDS unit and was a hard-core scouter, I would start a supplemental troop nearby that would take on the boys that really want to continue in scouting at their own expense.  After all that's how everyone else is doing it now anyway!

Edited May 12, 2017 by Stosh

[EmberMike]

This brings me back around to--what is BSA's core mission? Is it simply to expand membership? Is it to provide jobs and retirement for the professionals? Is it to serve as a proving ground social justice warrior agendas? Is it to teach boys leadership and outdoor skills?

 

I often think that the unofficial mission of National on an individual employee basis is job security. When you've got more years left in your working life than the company you work for has left (based on membership decline rates), your motivation can quickly become one of self-preservation. 

[Ankylus]

I'd challenge the suggestion that the LDS represents "key members."  At least around here, the LDS represents numbers on paper, and probably some revenue.  But these kids aren't the ones participating in the program, patronizing council properties and events, purchasing uniforms and such...

 

If I told every committee chairman in my council that our Varsity Teams were shutting down, 99% of them would say, "huh? Who cares?"  Now I get that this is a much bigger deal deeper in the heart of LDS territory... but I still think we're not really talking about the core target market here.

 

And if the local councils in the affected areas were smart, they'd be bending over backwards to identify new COs (or even supporting the starting of "Friends Of..." organizations) to charter replacement units to provide a seamless transition for those affected LDS scouts who do wish to participate in the Scouting program.

 

But my strong suspicion here is, these events just bring the BSA's membership numbers more in line with the numbers of "real" scouts and "real" units who actively participate in Scouting programs.  Its true, its a "loss," but I think more accurately its a "correction."

 

To me the loss of LDS is not remarkable so much for the loss in membership or revenues as it is two other factors.

 

The first is that as BSA continues succumbing to pressure from the political left to change it's program, it will continue to alienate a lot of it's faith-based partners. The Baptists left a couple of years ago. LDS is starting to leave. And there is another thread about how some Roman Catholic dioceses are booting the Girl Scouts for moving to far to the left, and I don't believe they will hesitate to do the same to BSA. 

 

The second is that this, in turn, will cause BSA to panic about loss of membership and revenue and make further ill-advised changes to the program to recruit membership from new places. I really don't see them returning to their fundamental roots. That leaves one place to evolve the program...away from what I understand to be it's core mission. 

 

If I am mistaken about the core mission, then so be it. It is not the organization I think it is or want it to be and I can react accordingly. I am sure they don't care too much about me, what I believe, or what I want.

 

But if I am right, and they are going to do that, then they need to make a conscious decision to do that and announce it so the rest of us can make the decision that is appropriate to us.

[CalicoPenn]

@desertrat77 I think one of the reasons AHG and TL/USA are coming on strong is not so much the faith basis of the program, it's because it's going back to the basics as you wish BSA would be doing.  I was the one who started the "Classic Scouting"  thread that strayed off course rather quickly.  I don't think people want the Lombardi approach.  After all, how does one drag GBB out of the closet and admit he had something good going when you've been re-writing history to exclude him for all these years.

 

 

I sure wish people would stop overstating the influence of AHG and TL/USA and would stop saying they are coming on strong.

 

AHG was founded in 1995.  They have 43,000 members.  The Girl Scouts has 2.6 Million.

 

TL-USA was founded in 2013 and started operations in 2014.  They have 26,000 members and only increased approximately 6,000 members from 2014 to now.  The BSA has 2.35 Million.

 

These membership numbers do not support the suggestion that they are coming on strong.  They are limping along in a very narrow demographic and it's not going to get much better for them given the current state of church attendance in the US.

 

TL-USA is not likely going to be benefitting at all from the LDS dropping Varsity/Venturing.

 

For years, we've been hearing this whole "TL-USA and AHG is a serious threat to the BSA argument" and it's just not playing out that way so can we finally put that to rest?

[Ankylus]

I often think that the unofficial mission of National on an individual employee basis is job security. When you've got more years left in your working life than the company you work for has left (based on membership decline rates), your motivation can quickly become one of self-preservation. 

 

Agreed, whole heartedly. 

[fred johnson]

I, too, view this as a money issue, not a programmatic issue.  

 

Money is the biggest worry in my mind too.  How much is lost in registration fees?  But then again, to be an organization of integrity, depending on fees from those not using the program is questionable.  

 

I think a key issue is as others wrote BSA's vision and goals.   BSA actually has a great core model that does keep getting screwed up, both by local units and by national organization.  By local units that become so perversely focused on how to teach leadership and how to teach other lessons that it damages the experiences for the scouts.  By national that keeps trying to find the next pet rock to solve the issue.  

 

The program is best when units focuses on getting scouts back to nature camping, canoeing, hiking and having adventures that safely push their comfort zones.  In my opinion, everything comes from that focus.  Life lessons.  Leadership lessons.  Opportunities to teach faith.  Also, I think that is what will drive membership. 

[fred johnson]

The Baptists left a couple of years ago. 

 

Not true.  We are chartered by a Baptist church and I receive emails from national Baptist organizations (even though I'm not Baptist) reconfirming their commitment and their value in the scouting program.

[NJCubScouter]

I think that what this discussion could use is at least a few people who are Scouters in LDS units.  As far as I know none of the participants so far fall into that category.  I know we have had some posts over the years from people who identify themselves as LDS Scouters or at least parents of LDS Scouts.  It may be that there are some dynamics within that church that would affect what people are suggesting as options for those Scouts/Venturers/Varsity members who actually want to be Scouts.

[Stosh]

I sure wish people would stop overstating the influence of AHG and TL/USA and would stop saying they are coming on strong.

 

AHG was founded in 1995.  They have 43,000 members.  The Girl Scouts has 2.6 Million.

 

TL-USA was founded in 2013 and started operations in 2014.  They have 26,000 members and only increased approximately 6,000 members from 2014 to now.  The BSA has 2.35 Million.

 

These membership numbers do not support the suggestion that they are coming on strong.  They are limping along in a very narrow demographic and it's not going to get much better for them given the current state of church attendance in the US.

 

TL-USA is not likely going to be benefitting at all from the LDS dropping Varsity/Venturing.

 

For years, we've been hearing this whole "TL-USA and AHG is a serious threat to the BSA argument" and it's just not playing out that way so can we finally put that to rest?

 

All I am saying is that as quickly as they have grown in just a few years, it shows a sense of competitive edge the BSA is ignoring.  Without the policy changes of the BSA, these other organizations such as Royal Rangers, AHG, TL/USA, etc. are gaining momentum and BSA is losing it.  The numbers now aren't significant, but they are changing.  I would like to see BSA's number changing in the + column.  Along with such school and community outdoor programs (my wife is now, as I write, doing school presentations for the local Parks/Rec in the local marshlands for hundreds of kids.  Then there's KAMO, an organization locally that is taking on kids with an outdoor experience in mind.  The local conservation clubs are opening up their doors to younger members, and the Venturing Crew I was trying to start was taken over by one of the local high schools and are doing the same thing as a club. 

 

Maybe TL/USA and AHG aren't the threat, but the ideas they promote along with many other groups IS becoming a threat.

[Eagledad]

You're perhaps forgetting that girls are appealing to boys ;-)  And that the model has worked in pretty much every other country with a Scouting organization.

 

 

 

Well, sounds like your mind is already made up.

 

It's so easy to blame abstract (and usually fictional) ideology when the truth is rather hard to digest.  Youth who are active in Scouting of their own free will are in Scouting because the like the program, they like participating in the program with their friends, they like the challenge and opportunity the program offers.  And, most importantly, they have units in their area which deliver this high quality program. Youth who take a pass on scouting do so because either they aren't interested in the program, or they don't have local access to a unit that delivers the kind of program they are interested in.  The "3Gs" really don't come up when you ask the youth what about Scouting they do or do not like.  It's all about program.

 

Tip O'Neill is credited with saying, "all politics is local" - and I think that's a good metaphor for what we're seeing in Scouting.  Its easy for us, as adults, to blame (or credit, depending on your position) big-picture ideology for Scoutings' success or failures.  But, in reality, when it comes to actually serving youth, the biggest impact is you as a unit-level leader, what you bring to the table, and what program you deliver.

I don't agree. I learned over the years that parents pretty much drive who joins scouts, at least until the boy is about 13. At that point parents feel like they did their part. In fact I used to teach the Cub Scout leaders that while it is of the opinion that Scouts is for the boys, in reality the program is driven by the parents and if they want a successful program, they need to listen to the needs of the parents because their sons go where the parents want them to go. That is basically true even for 11 and 12 year olds.

 

When the gay issue was at it's most heated, new parents considering scouts said politics was the number 1 reason they would turn away from joining. Not because they disagreed with the BSA, but because they just didn't want to get in the middle of the debate. Folks are saturated with politics everyday now, why join another organization that is in the political hot seat. 

 

I keep reminding folks to look at the Canadian Scouts to see the BSA's future. Not only have the numbers never come close to being what they were when it was the Canadian Boy Scouts, it is also a much different program that isn't as much out door oriented or character based. There were several discussions even 15 years ago that if the program were to go more progressive, it would have to get away from faith based morality values. The Girls Scouts have already done it. But God will be taken out of the Scout Oath and Law. History of the YMCA  is another example of the direction scouting is going. 

 

By the way, when I explain what the changes that we are proposing the BSA is going to make to old timers like my dad, they don't consider it the same program. Boy Scouts of America is dead as far as their concerned. I'm not far from that to be honest.

 

Barry

Edited May 12, 2017 by Eagledad

[fred johnson]

We all know that LDS units are run differently, i.e. old 3 year Cub Scout program ...

 

Ahhh ... So there is something that LDS did better than everyone else.  I'd absolutely love to see just a 3 year cub program.  

[NJCubScouter]

The first is that as BSA continues succumbing to pressure from the political left to change it's program, it will continue to alienate a lot of it's faith-based partners. The Baptists left a couple of years ago.

Ok Ankylus, you have made several statements now about the "left", "leftists" etc. Please explain how you think the program has been affected by "pressure from the political left."

 

And also please provide a source for the idea that the Baptists have "left" Scouting. I am sure some did leave, but I am not aware that they have "left" as an official policy.

[Col. Flagg]

I'll jump in here. Sorry in advance...
 

I would rather not rely on memory, and certainly not mine. Somewhere on the Internet there is a chart showing membership in all the different programs year by year, going back a number of years.  I can't find it.  It would be interesting to see actual numbers.

 
As I recall since 2013 the membership losses have been ~6-7% year on year. I recall a post by @@Krampus (he's been silent on this) a while back that had those numbers. Losing 14-18 year old LDS scouts would be an over 8% loss. That would have to be the largest loss in certainly the last 20 years. I would imagine the financial loss of supply, FOS and dues would also be fairly significant.
 
 

You're perhaps forgetting that girls are appealing to boys ;-)  And that the model has worked in pretty much every other country with a Scouting organization.

 
This philosophy hasn't swelled the ranks of Venturing.  
 
 

It's not necessarily bad business if the business is already in sharp decline. It would be seen as a risky move, but when you can start to see the end of the line for scouting in America as we know it if the rate of decline doesn't change, taking risks becomes necessary to change direction. 
 
But look at it from the National point of view. They've been throwing new programing, tech, STEM, SBR, etc., at the problem for years and it hasn't helped. Making changes that would have previously been viewed as risky or bad for business all of a sudden look a bit more appealing when your list of things to try is getting shorter and shorter.

 
I love the Boston Box reference.
 
But you are assuming the Cash Cow (Boy Scouts) is dead. Use the basic BCG Matrix as your guide. Girls in Scouting is a "Question Mark". Religious organizations in Scouting are the "Cash Cows". You NEVER sacrifice the latter for the former. Never! You can take risks elsewhere, but you need your Cash Cow to fund your "Question Marks". @@backpack has it right; it take FAR more money to get a new client than to maintain an existing one. And SMART businesses NEVER drop or disregard the latter for the sake of the former. That's nor risky, it's stupid. Successful businesses that survive tough times DON'T do such things. By all means take risks (STEM, Venturing, etc.) but don't alienate your best customers.
 

I'd challenge the suggestion that the LDS represents "key members."

Key members = religious organizations that charter over 70% of BSA units is what I think is meant here, of which LDS is the largest of that 70%, hence largest customer. @@backpack, is that what you meant?

[jwest09]

Col. Flagg - I obviously didn't mean that a co-ed program alone will solve the membership issue.  Venturing is co-ed - but their success is based on the program they offer.  Successful crews offer fun and interesting programs.  Unsuccessful crews don't.  Whether its co-ed is a secondary concern to the quality of the program.  My point here is - co-ed doesn't hurt a unit, if they offer a compelling program.  Note that's not the same as saying that a co-ed unit will make up for failing to offer a quality program.

 

And I don't consider COs the "members" of the BSA.  We are the members of the BSA.  We can and do change COs all the time, with minimal impact to the program we deliver to the youth we serve.  COs aren't the ones spending money on camps, uniforms, program materials, etc.  We, the scouts and scouters, are.

 

Along those lines, I think this situation illustrates the folly in trying to treat the COs as the "customer," rather than treating the membership base as the "customer."  Just based on reading this forum - the vast majority of the time, we hear that the CO is "uninvolved," "doesn't care," "we don't even know who they are."  Its hard to argue that the COs are, or even should be, considered the "key members" or "customers" of the BSA, when this is the practical situation for the majority of our units.

[Col. Flagg]

Col. Flagg - I obviously didn't mean that a co-ed program alone will solve the membership issue.  Venturing is co-ed - but their success is based on the program they offer.  Successful crews offer fun and interesting programs.  Unsuccessful crews don't.  Whether its co-ed is a secondary concern to the quality of the program.  My point here is - co-ed doesn't hurt a unit, if they offer a compelling program.  Note that's not the same as saying that a co-ed unit will make up for failing to offer a quality program.

Fair enough. But adding girls has a positive and a negative. And since BSA will no doubt have an anti-dating policy in place, having girls you can't "get to know" in your unit really is like dangling food in front of a starving man.

 

And I don't consider COs the "members" of the BSA.  We are the members of the BSA.  We can and do change COs all the time, with minimal impact to the program we deliver to the youth we serve.  COs aren't the ones spending money on camps, uniforms, program materials, etc.  We, the scouts and scouters, are.

Well we may be the members, but the COs own the units. The point being you don't tick off the owners of the unit. When they go it upsets the balance. Will you find a new CO? If the CO is as big as LDS the link between CO and members is stronger than in other CO-member relationships. Again, you don't tick off COs OR members.

 

Along those lines, I think this situation illustrates the folly in trying to treat the COs as the "customer," rather than treating the membership base as the "customer."  Just based on reading this forum - the vast majority of the time, we hear that the CO is "uninvolved," "doesn't care," "we don't even know who they are."  Its hard to argue that the COs are, or even should be, considered the "key members" or "customers" of the BSA, when this is the practical situation for the majority of our units.

 

I think this is true, however, even if a CO is hands off, if they get po'd and decide to drop a unit it is not 100% that these units find a new CO. And in the case of LDS (and a few other religions) the relation between CO and units is very, very close.