What scouting needs vs wants

[MattR]

I MOVED A BUNCH OF POSTS from the ch 11 thread to here, as it really has gone off from legalese (although important to the ch 11 thread). So, some of these posts you may have seen. Look for the time stamp of 5/9/2021 at 4pm Eastern.

 

On 5/8/2021 at 6:13 AM, RememberSchiff said:

I do not understand this argument when the vast majority of scouts (90 percent ?) will not attend a BSA HA camp. The outdoors are core to our mission not any particular property.

I've been on about 15 high adventure trips and none have been at a high adventure base. For a while we were doing 2 a year. We need a local camp more than a high adventure base. A 3 hour vs 1 hour drive for a weekend campout will have a much bigger negative impact on our program than anything related to HA bases. 

Rather than summit, which is 1500 miles away, a wiki with ideas and potential outfitters would do us more good. Having a network of scout camps we could stay at would also make travel cheaper. 

While there's lots of discussion by the lawyers about the property values I wonder if anyone is considering what the units need. Unfortunately, I suspect I know the answer to that.

Edited May 9, 2021 by MattR

[qwazse]

4 minutes ago, MattR said:

... Rather than summit, which is 1500 miles away, a wiki with ideas and potential outfitters would do us more good. Having a network of scout camps we could stay at would also make travel cheaper. ...

You mean http://www.usscouts.org/databases/camp/ocd.cgi

The TCC is probably using that for their machinations.

[MattR]

1 hour ago, qwazse said:

You mean http://www.usscouts.org/databases/camp/ocd.cgi

No and sorta. These are not are HA trips. It could become a useful list of places to stop at but most of them are trying to be a destination and not a way point.

[yknot]

2 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

 

LCs have an infrastructure built and developed for a scouting population of 3-4 million (1955-2004) when, if BSA is very, very lucky, like stupefyingly lucky, it will emerge from bankruptcy and COVID with 2 million (which is what it was in 2019, just before LDS left) and more likely 1-1.5 million, which was the number of scouts in 1944.

 

Given that scouts is at 750,000 now,  1 million may be optimistic. The success of this fall's recruitment will be informative when it's seen how many scouts return.  There could be a big bounce but it's also possible there could be yet additional attrition. The pandemic has changed a lot of things -- family priorities, finances, youth interests. It's unclear how these changes could affect recruitment. I have wondered what happens if at some point during Chapter 11 it becomes clear that scouting is a dinosaur on life support. 

 

[CynicalScouter]

49 minutes ago, yknot said:

scouting is a dinosaur on life support. 

It is everyone with two cents worth of sense knows it. The only question is if gen z parents  (:20-40 the ones currently with school age kids) view it as a dinosaur they want to be affiliated with.

The millennial generation (current ages = 40-55) already answered: heck no they did not put or keep their kids in.

Edited May 8, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[RandomScouter]

Of all the things for me to comment on in my first post, and it isn't about bankruptcy...

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

It is everyone with two cents worth of sense knows it. The only question is if gen z parents  (:20-40 the ones currently with school age kids) view it as a dinosaur they want to be affiliated with.

The millennial generation (current ages = 40-55) already answered: heck no they did not put or keep their kids in.

By gen z parents, do you mean the parents of gen z kids, or gen-z adults who have kids?

Speaking as a member of Gen X, I don't quite agree with the ages you listed.  As I understand it, Gen X is generally considered to be people born 1965-1980, and Gen Y (aka millennials) is people born 1980 through some time in the 1990s.

That said (and speaking broadly), millennial parents tend to have different goals and priorities than previous generations.

[yknot]

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

It is everyone with two cents worth of sense knows it. The only question is if gen z parents  (:20-40 the ones currently with school age kids) view it as a dinosaur they want to be affiliated with.

The millennial generation (current ages = 40-55) already answered: heck no they did not put or keep their kids in.

It seems kind of obvious but you do hope.

I don't know about Gen Z. First off, I see them putting off having families as have Millennials. Frankly, I look out over the units I see and there are still a lot of Baby Boomer parents here with adolescents and teenagers, especially dads.  We're still riding the membership connection to that generation.  
 

[MattR]

@RandomScouter, welcome to the forum. Sorry there aren't any other topics to talk about 

[69RoadRunner]

1 hour ago, yknot said:

It seems kind of obvious but you do hope.

I don't know about Gen Z. First off, I see them putting off having families as have Millennials. Frankly, I look out over the units I see and there are still a lot of Baby Boomer parents here with adolescents and teenagers, especially dads.  We're still riding the membership connection to that generation.  
 

Not too many boomers with teen kids. It's mostly us Gen Xers.

[CynicalScouter]

1 hour ago, yknot said:

First off, I see them putting off having families as have Millennials. Frankly, I look out over the units I see and there are still a lot of Baby Boomer parents here with adolescents and teenagers, especially dads. 

The youngest boomer is 57. The oldest is 75. If we are talking cohorts, Boomers are not bringing in their kids.

Let's talk generational then. If boomers = 1946 to 1964, then they were in scouts from 1953 (1946 + 7) to 1971 (Cubs).

Note: that is precisely when the wheels fell off.

Now, some of this is attributed to the decline births/the number of young people but a LOT comes from a decline in BSA. I am NOT going to hash how why that happened, lots of people have lots of theories, but suffice to say, it happened. Plus, there were societal changes that impacted BSA. Again not going to has how, just acknowledging it.

So, here's my question: how on EARTH does BSA think it is going to get back to 1950s numbers? Or 1970s? Or 1990s?

Consider then the following:

The high water mark for scouting was probably around 1970. Cubs = 2,438,009. Boy Scouts =  1,915,457. Overall Scouting had almost 16% of all boys (age 6-17) in its programs. Camps were being built. It was the heyday.

Today Market share has now collapsed to 4.3% (2018 and 2019) and is at or below 2% (2020 due to LDS it was at 2.4%; today it is likely well 2% and closer to 1.5%). Adding girls didn't help, or didn't help much.

So, back to the point at hand: the bankruptcy.

In order for BSA to emerge from bankruptcy, it was given the exclusive right to submit its reorganization plan. And it has done so, twice. And EACH plan assumes a membership model that looks more like 1980 or 1990 than today. Do we REALLY need 4 HA bases? For a dwindling membership?

And local councils? Do they need camps for a membership in freefall?

That is why, frankly and bluntly, what the TCC is doing in terms of going through property by property is a BLESSING for BSA long term. Why? Because too many people from 1, 2, even 3 generations ago are holding out longing memories for their old, beloved camp days when those camps are NOT sustainable and NOT essential. It maybe ONE camp in a council is, but not the others.

This is, or will, make councils have to justify to a court that a particular camp really is essential TODAY. Not 20-30 years ago. TODAY.

Yes, a lot of councils are about to lose a lot of camps. But folks, this is not the 1960s and 1970s anymore.

BSA is a dinosaur on life support.

It will shamble on post-bankruptcy, but we are part of a dying organization.

What number will it stabilize at will help determine the BSA bankruptcy plan. Or BSA (and the LCs) can keep screwing around with sweetheart deals with Hartford and protecting Summit and local camps at all costs.

And then TCC/FCR/Coalition will be invited to introduce their OWN reorganization plan. And I assure you all, NO ONE associated with scouting is going to like it.

[yknot]

26 minutes ago, 69RoadRunner said:

Not too many boomers with teen kids. It's mostly us Gen Xers.

Well, I'm a boomer with a young teen and so are most of my friends who have/had kids in the program. I don't know if we gravitated to each other because of the generational thing but here we are. Not uncommon for people to have had kids or adopted late in life or be on second marriages with younger kids. We have also been the ones running things. A good segment of Gen X'ers right below us too-- thank the Lord for you guys. Millennials? Uh, almost none. 

[CynicalScouter]

5 hours ago, yknot said:

Given that scouts is at 750,000 now,  1 million may be optimistic.

Let's do some math. Based on these Key Performance Indicator reports from BSA.

KPI Report December 2019

KPI Report December 2020

	MEMBERSHIP	MARKETSHARE	BSA ASSUMED MARKET
2017	2,282,576	4.5%	50,723,911
2018	2,186,329	4.3%	50,844,860
2019	2,118,448	4.2%	50,439,238
2020	1,199,425	2.4%	49,976,042
2021 (Estimate A)	750,000	1.5%	50,496,013
2021 (Estimate B)	504,390	1.0%	50,439,038
2021 (Estimate C)	974,713	2.9%	50,337,583

Estimate A: BSA doesn't recover its current state of around 750,009.

Estimate B: BSA is claim 1% of total market share

Estimate C- BSA is able to recover 50% of the losses sustain in 2021.

I am thinking that 50% of the losses due to COVID come back, thus 1 million is in the range of possibility. But barely.

 

[yknot]

11 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

The youngest boomer is 57. The oldest is 75. If we are talking cohorts, Boomers are not bringing in their kids.

I kind of disagree. The biggest supporters of scouting in my neck of the woods are younger boomers who still have relatively young kids and then to a lesser degree, Gen X'ers. We are still out there supporting things like scouts and sports and all the legacy community organizations. I think when the last cohort of younger boomers with scout aged kids, which I'm in, ages out in the next few years, it's going to be noticeable. 

Which is to say I agree that BSA is going to have a tough time producing a business model that supports retaining all these camp and HA bases. 

[Sentinel947]

1 hour ago, yknot said:

Well, I'm a boomer with a young teen and so are most of my friends who have/had kids in the program. I don't know if we gravitated to each other because of the generational thing but here we are. Not uncommon for people to have had kids or adopted late in life or be on second marriages with younger kids. We have also been the ones running things. A good segment of Gen X'ers right below us too-- thank the Lord for you guys. Millennials? Uh, almost none. 

Millennials are age 25-40 currently and have had a hard time starting families due to cost of living and the 08 recession. I'm 27 and the youngest of my cousins. All of my cousins are older than I am, in a range of 28-34. None has a child over the age of 4 currently. I think of my extended family as a fairly average Americans as far as income, occupation and educational attainment is concerned. Granted, we're all in the younger half of the Millennial generation. 

My point, is if we see Millennial parents in Scouting, the parents and kids would most likely only be involved in Cub Scouts at this point, and that would likely be parents 30-40 years old. Not to say people don't have kids in their 20's anymore, but it's less common than it used to be.

[MattR]

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

BSA is a dinosaur on life support.

It will shamble on post-bankruptcy, but we are part of a dying organization.

Old saying: when a worm sits in horseradish, it doesn't know there's anything sweeter.

Another, not so old saying: Sometimes things have to get worse before they get better.

Not really a saying: Go look at UK Scouts. At least before the pandemic they had lists of people trying to get their kids in scouts.