LDS Dropping Senior Youth Scouting

[Eagle94-A1]

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

 

Yes and no. I love too love the 3 year program. But I do not like that the LDS packs cannot camp. I also do not like the fact that they separate the Boy Scout youth into 3 different programs

[NJCubScouter]

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.

I am not just talking about since 2013, and I am not just talking about approximate numbers that someone posts in a forum based on what they heard. Somewhere in my life I have seen a chart showing membership numbers broken down by program going back probably to the 1960's, maybe even beyond that.  Maybe it wasn't an actual chart, maybe it was more of a narrative, but it had the numbers.  If people are going to make statements like "this is the biggest drop ever" or "this is the biggest drop in memory" (whatever that means; whose memory?), it would be nice to have the history of the actual numbers, going back decades and all the way up to 2017 so we can have a discussion based on the actual facts rather than what someone remembers or heard somewhere.  Maybe the actual facts would put what has just happened into some sort of perspective.

[NJCubScouter]

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.

 

I think its a little more complicated than that.  In my area I would say you are correct, the individuals youths (and their parents) are the customer.  But in the case of the LDS Church, they really are the customer.  The church has been the "decider" of which youth program their members are going to join.  It is the church that pays the registration fees, and as I learned yesterday, they have apparently negotiated lower fees.  There are other large CO's such as the Roman Catholic Church and the United Methodist Church, and maybe to some extent those could be considered "customers" along with the individual members, but those situations are different from the LDS in a number of ways.

 

Maybe now the individual boys (and their parents) in the LDS church will become "customers" of the BSA on their own.  Maybe.  As I said before, some perspectives from LDS Scouters would be helpful.

[NJCubScouter]

Yes and no. I love too love the 3 year program. But I do not like that the LDS packs cannot camp. I also do not like the fact that they separate the Boy Scout youth into 3 different programs

 

It is my understanding that even the 11-year-olds in the LDS program cannot camp.  Or am I misunderstanding their program?

[SSScout]

Scouting every where is voluntary, a kid joins because he(she?) sees some benefit /fun for themselves in it.  Except for our LDS friends. 
I recently finished an IOLS weekend. We had , oh, maybe three LDS folks with us, had a nice conversation with one man.  As is usual, he said he had been "assigned" the duty by his Bishop of being the next Scoutmaster (his son was a Cub presently).  His son had been "signed up", Scouting is the youth ministry, and had come to love it, owing to the good leadership in his Stake. Perhaps that is the exception?  

 

So, why do we (here on SdotCom) think Scouting is a good thing for kids?   Why do kids join?  Why do parents not support the kids that want to be Scouts?  If LDS resigns from supporting the "Senior Scout" programs, what can we do about it?    Our Council has five up to now long lived Scout Ships.  One is dechartered (no kids joined in the past three years, no adult leaders stepping up) and one is in trouble the same way, despite well meaning PR and media coverage.  Why teen agers would not want to "mess about in boats" is beyond me, but there you are. No sign ups of late.

 

LDS Scout population was not volunteer, it was "volunteered".  If the Scouts/Venturers transfer into other units, it is because they see the fun/benefit/social connection possibilities, not because their church wants them to. 

 

The final answer, I think , is that Scouting will become leaner and more efficient.  It was never meant to be appropriate or the end all for every kid.  But it is seen as, and has the reputation of being,  one of (if not the) best youth program around. 

 

Would you be the CSE for a buck?   Or do you NEED the six figure income for the title?   

[Col. Flagg]

I am not just talking about since 2013, and I am not just talking about approximate numbers that someone posts in a forum based on what they heard. Somewhere in my life I have seen a chart showing membership numbers broken down by program going back probably to the 1960's, maybe even beyond that.  Maybe it wasn't an actual chart, maybe it was more of a narrative, but it had the numbers.  If people are going to make statements like "this is the biggest drop ever" or "this is the biggest drop in memory" (whatever that means; whose memory?), it would be nice to have the history of the actual numbers, going back decades and all the way up to 2017 so we can have a discussion based on the actual facts rather than what someone remembers or heard somewhere.  Maybe the actual facts would put what has just happened into some sort of perspective.

 

I found this in the archives. Following the thread it appears to post the annual report numbers. A quick search confirms these are correct depending on whether you accept the spring numbers or the numbers adjusted later that summer each year. 

 

I, too, remember the historical year-on-year membership loss being around 2-3%. In looking I found this from the WP showing the decline based on the annual reports, but no year-on-year figures per se. This from the CT notes a 7% drop. I looked quick to find annual reports prior to 1998 but did not find any with a cursory search. At least that far back 7% looks like the biggest drop.

[AltadenaCraig]

Col Flagg:  the highest compliment I can pay to your posts is that you're making me think.

 

Courses titled "... for LDS" (insert "Cub Scouting, "Boy Scouting") offered at Pow Wow's and the like give me the feeling that special accommodations are being made to LDS units - which at the least leave me feeling separated and at worst leave me wondering whether the LDS church's membership policies have resulted in their gaining a disproportionately louder voice within the BSA.  Your earlier posts on this thread give me the impression you're willing to accept the "tail wagging the dog" because their numbers make them "too big to fail."

 

While I'm mulling this all over, I'll add my voice to those who suspect this is driven by girls-in-the-BSA ... I'll also add my suspicion the LDS will be pulling out of the BSA entirely.  Remember the GSUSA is conspicuously absent from the LDS program.  There's a reason for that - and it has nothing to do with whether the GSUSA leans one way or the other politically.  LDS shunned GSUSA long before our politics became so divisive.  The BSA's consideration of how/whether to open other programs to girls is apparently too much for the LDS church to handle.

 

But agenda-speculating aside, I find Col Flagg's more recent posts - on LDS facilities in particular and Boston Consulting Group strategy model in general - compelling.  We have to be mindful that significant resources are at risk, and be thoughtful about how we're going to adjust.

[Col. Flagg]

Your earlier posts on this thread give me the impression you're willing to accept the "tail wagging the dog" because their numbers make them "too big to fail."

I would never classify anything as too big to fail. Even the Romans fell. My point was that you don't alienate the majority of the customers, nor your biggest customer, if you hope to succeed. There are other options, such as working with your market segments to find something that can appease them/meet their needs AND then reach out to new markets.

 

The BSA's consideration of how/whether to open other programs to girls is apparently too much for the LDS church to handle.

 

That was my assumption too from talking to my LDS colleagues.

 

But agenda-speculating aside, I find Col Flagg's more recent posts - on LDS facilities in particular and Boston Consulting Group strategy model in general - compelling.  We have to be mindful that significant resources are at risk, and be thoughtful about how we're going to adjust.

Yes, that was another point. In the age of shrinking contributions, razor thin margins, higher costs, etc., losing any revenue stream is not something a successful business does until they have a valid, proven replacement revenue stream.

[T2Eagle]

 

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 a pretty big point.  Most of the discussion here relies on the idea that the LDS Church is being dishonest in the reasons they're giving for ending their involvement in this part of the program.  If we take them at their word the changes they're making are not related to the recent membership standards changes, and frankly that makes a lot of sense --- a Church outsourcing their youth program for half the members to an outside source might have made sense when LDS was a new, American only, fairly fringe and out of the mainstream new religion 100 years ago.  But today it is the opposite of all those things; taking direct control of their program and tailoring it to their church's needs makes a lot of sense.

 

The BSA model has relied on several major religions as COs to drive their membership and provide vital support.  This is a model that works great right up until it doesn't.  Again, believing the LDS to be truthful in their statements, this decision could easily have occurred absent any membership change --- what then?

 

Relying on a few very hierarchical organizations leaves us vulnerable to the decision of a very few people, some of whom may not even be very invested in the program to begin with.  The number of civic organizations other than churches that are available to charter units has been decreasing rapidly and steadily for a few decades (see the movie/book "Bowling Alone') so I'm not sure what model other than the current one can be found, but somebody should be thinking hard about this.  I'm chartered by a Catholic parish; the overwhelming number of our parents aren't concerned one way or the other about membership changes, and frankly probably aren't that concerned about the Church's position on them so long as it doesn't affect our unit, but if the church orders the unit closed it's closed, irrespective of the parents' views.  But if we were chartered either directly or by a nonsectarian CO then the church's position would probably have virtually no effect on membership.

 

Ponder what would happen if the Catholic church came out tomorrow against youth soccer programs, I doubt youth soccer would see more than a single digit decrease in membership.

Edited May 12, 2017 by T2Eagle

[Saltface]

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.

 

And you shall have one.

 

I've lurked on this website from time to time but never posted before.

 

I'm in a district and council dominated by LDS units and I've been an adult leader in LDS units for about eight years. Mormon Varsity and Venture units do high-adventure activities, learn skills, operate in a boy-led environment, and do everything a non-LDS unit does, but don't wear a Scout uniform while doing it. The only BSA activity the Varsity teams do here is the biennial Mountain Man Rendezvous (which is pretty much a church activity that makes use of a BSA scout camp). Venture crews might have their annual super-activity at Philmont or another high-adventure base, but most don't. 

 

BSA is going to lose revenue over the withdrawal in January, but not much active membership. If the LDS church withdraws completely, it would completely gut four of the six largest councils in BSA. I don't see too many Mormon youth wanting to continue in BSA when they can scratch their scouting itch with church activities. I don't know what the programs will look like for 14-18 year-olds next year, but I can see them still focusing on scoutcraft. The young women's program is entirely internal to the church and covers almost everything you learn and do up to First Class (YMMV). Manly ego dictates we do at least that much. Furthermore, there are too many LDS Scoutmasters that have learned the secret of hiking boys to exhaustion, then teaching them life lessons around a campfire.

[CalicoPenn]

In talking to my LDS colleagues, this has a lot more to do with internal LDS politics than it does with and BSA policy changes - made and considered.

 

Varsity/Venturing has always been a poor fit with the Aaronic Priesthood (boys from 14-18) - it really only delivered some outdoor/high adventure/sports things and everything else was haphazardly squeezed in.  There have been a lot of internal complaining the last 30 years or so as the LDS church has expanded outside the US and Canada that there has been no formal program put together for the priesthood - which covers a lot more ground than the program Scouting offers.  Not only do other country's LDS Stakes complain that there is no BSA like program that they could be piggy-backed too, there have been grumblings from US and Canadian stakes that there is no uniformity of the program throughout the Stakes - that each feels they have had to invent their own wheel within the Varsity/Venturing realm.  For the past 10 or so years, there have been increasing complaints from LDS women that the girls aren't being well-served either.  As the LDS works to modernize just a bit, they can no longer ignore the cries that boys and girls are being treated unequally and that foreign Stakes don't have equitable parity with US and Canadian Stakes.

 

The LDS church has been working for years on putting together a standardized program for the Aaronic Priesthood and now it's ready.  The LDS folks I've spoken to over the years have said this is coming and that it was just a matter of time.

 

Will it impact Scouting's numbers?  Of course - but one reality is that as a result of their automatic registration policy, the membership numbers have been artificially inflated - and can we truly say that it isn't the same as when a Council just keeps Scouts that are dropping out on the rolls to boost their numbers.

 

A lot of these LDS leaders involved in Scouting have earned the Eagle Scout rank.  They like the BSA.  Most of them think a lot of the membership drop will be of those that are registered and not participating - they're already trying to figure out if there is a way their Stakes can charter these units as more traditional units - with the members of the units paying dues, like every other traditional Scout unit.  The biggest fears the LDS units have is that now that Varsity/Venturing will no longer be part of the official youth program, will Stake Presidents give the units the same dispensation for traveling on Sunday mornings after Camporees.

 

I think we'll see a short term loss, followed by a stabilization of numbers.  The BSA will figure out the funding.  There will be some LDS dominated traditional units created in the aftermath because there are still a lot of people in the LDS church who like the Boy Scouts and want their children to be Boy Scouts, even if it is no longer an official part of the church.

 

I believe it is just too soon to panic.

[NJCubScouter]

And you shall have one.

 

Thanks Saltface and welcome to the forum!

 

I believe it is just too soon to panic.

 

Way too soon.

[David CO]

BSA is not a wholesaler.  It is retail.  While it may be true that the scout is the ultimate consumer of BSA's product, BSA should not ignore the retailer.

[CougarBlue]

Another longtime lurker but wanted to contribute to the conversation from a LDS scouter's perspective.

 

I've been involved in Scouting for going on 30 years. For the last four years I've been serving as a Scoutmaster.

 

From my experience and perspective, CalicoPenn hit it on the head. The programs have underserved the young men in the 14-18 age range. Yes, there's a financial consideration but this move has been a longtime coming and there were discussions on a local level about changes that I can remember having in the 90's. The reality is that they haven't worked due to a large number of reasons, predominately organizationally at the local LDS level. These challenges have been discussed ad nauseam. I do take the Church's statement at face value as my experience aligns to the picture they painted. I don't believe that these changes are a result of the recent political discourse, however I'm sure it hastened the review and considerations. 

 

I firmly believe that the decision was made in the best interest of the young men. The fact that they are sticking with the program for the younger boys is encouraging and telling. All this being said, there's a part of me that is sadden by the change. Having been a member of a high-functioning Venture Crew in my youth (earned the Silver and Ranger awards), I know firsthand the value that these programs can offer to young men when properly executed. The problem again has always been consistency, leadership and support. 

[Ankylus]

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.

 

OK. All I know is that every Baptist church within perhaps 20 miles of where I am sitting did not recharter their troops. Maybe its different where you are. But they certainly pulled out here.