Scouting America

[yknot]

4 hours ago, PACAN said:

12/23 to 7/24   losses 175k

 

Girls 25K  or 14%

Boys 150K or 86%

The actual membership number July of 2023 was somewhere around 875,000, so the drop isn't that dramatic. BSA/SA has always played a shell game with its membership numbers. The ones it generally announces on January 1 or thereabouts have always been inflated. It's better to compare mid year numbers year to year. There has been a substantial drop but it's  in the few tens of thousands combined. 

[Jameson76]

11 hours ago, yknot said:

The actual membership number July of 2023 was somewhere around 875,000, so the drop isn't that dramatic. BSA/SA has always played a shell game with its membership numbers. The ones it generally announces on January 1 or thereabouts have always been inflated. It's better to compare mid year numbers year to year. There has been a substantial drop but it's  in the few tens of thousands combined. 

Calling what BSA publishes on membership being a "shell game" is very polite.  The BSA (sorry SA) has not published the "Report to the Nation" in several years, at least in the format as in year's past.  That whole pesky Trustworthy thing not being observed.

Typically when a company does not send out actual figures, the reason is it's bad news.  With the revamped membership registration process, the move to coed (it's not a pilot folks), and the emphasis to push out any current leaders not embracing the move to coed (to make room for all the leaders waiting in the wings); while a very worthwhile and needed program, the future is not bright.

[PACAN]

I'm not sure if year to year is a better metric than the end of the previous calendar year to July is better.  Being down 175K from the end of 2023 doesn't  give me a feeling that we are making much recovery.

[yknot]

5 hours ago, PACAN said:

I'm not sure if year to year is a better metric than the end of the previous calendar year to July is better.  Being down 175K from the end of 2023 doesn't  give me a feeling that we are making much recovery.

Numbers from 12/23 were inflated, as they are end of year in every report that the BSA issues in early January. That's because the BSA doesn't reconcile its membership until March. The most accurate membership number is generally April to April. Somewhere on this Forum there was a post from I think Malveaux @malraux   who had an accurate count from last year that was more along the lines of 875,000. 

 

Edited September 6 by RememberSchiff
add notice to malraux

[RememberSchiff]

2 hours ago, yknot said:

Numbers from 12/23 were inflated, as they are end of year in every report that the BSA issues in early January. That's because the BSA doesn't reconcile its membership until March. The most accurate membership number is generally April to April. Somewhere on this Forum there was a post from I think Malveaux @malraux   who had an accurate count from last year that was more along the lines of 875,000. 

 

Good memory @yknot. 

 

Edited September 6 by RememberSchiff

[BetterWithCheddar]

The numbers get worse when you consider how the US population has grown over time.

BSA is currently at ~20% of its 1980 membership, but adjusting for the change in population over the last 45 years, it's really about ~14% of its 1980 membership.

• 1980:
  • Membership = 4.3 million
  • US Population = 223 million
  • % of Population in BSA = 1.9%
• 1990
  • Membership = 4.0 million
  • US Population = 248 million
  • % of Population in BSA = 1.6%
• 2000:
  • Membership = 3.4 million
  • US Population = 282 million
  • % of Population in BSA = 1.2%
• 2010:
  • Membership = 2.7 million
  • US Population = 311 million
  • % of Population in BSA = 0.9%
• 2019:
  • Membership = 2.0 million
  • US Population = 334 million
  • % of Population in BSA = 0.6%
• 2023:
  • Membership = 0.9 million
  • US Population = 339 million
  • % of Population in BSA = 0.3%

 

[PACAN]

@yknot......Numbers from 12/23 were inflated, as they are end of year in every report that the BSA issues in early January.

 

Didn't we fire professionals in the past for padding numbers with phantom registrations?

[yknot]

39 minutes ago, PACAN said:

@yknot......Numbers from 12/23 were inflated, as they are end of year in every report that the BSA issues in early January.

 

Didn't we fire professionals in the past for padding numbers with phantom registrations?

I think that was for actually making up fake memberships although it predates my time.

This is counting charters and memberships past the end of the year through a three month grace period that extends into March. They include them in the membership tally they publicize on or around Jan. 1.  They didn't publicize a membership total in January of this year, 2024, though so even with that scheme, as the 11/23 numbers showed, it must have been a decline.  

Under the new registration scheme, SA will now allow themselves to count expired memberships as pending for six months while they continue to send renewal notices.

 

[mrjohns2]

52 minutes ago, PACAN said:

Numbers from 12/23 were inflated, as they are end of year in every report that the BSA issues in early January.

It doesn't matter if they were inflated last year. If they were inflated every year, it would allow apples to apples comparison. You wouldn't want to compare March to December between 2 years as it wouldn't be apples to apples. 

[Eagle1993]

On 9/7/2024 at 6:54 AM, BetterWithCheddar said:

The numbers get worse when you consider how the US population has grown over time.

BSA is currently at ~20% of its 1980 membership, but adjusting for the change in population over the last 45 years, it's really about ~14% of its 1980 membership.

• 1980:
  • Membership = 4.3 million
  • US Population = 223 million
  • % of Population in BSA = 1.9%
• 1990
  • Membership = 4.0 million
  • US Population = 248 million
  • % of Population in BSA = 1.6%
• 2000:
  • Membership = 3.4 million
  • US Population = 282 million
  • % of Population in BSA = 1.2%
• 2010:
  • Membership = 2.7 million
  • US Population = 311 million
  • % of Population in BSA = 0.9%
• 2019:
  • Membership = 2.0 million
  • US Population = 334 million
  • % of Population in BSA = 0.6%
• 2023:
  • Membership = 0.9 million
  • US Population = 339 million
  • % of Population in BSA = 0.3%

 

One minor issue with this is that percentage of youth in the population varies over time.  It peaked in the 1960s when 36% of the population was under 18.  Today it is in decline (22%).  Numbers will still look bad...  % youth below:

1980 - 28%

1990 - 26%

2000 - 26%

2010 - 24%

2019 - 22%

2023 - 22%

[skeptic]

Maybe the efforts could focus on ways to draw modern youth and parents while keeping to the Tenets?  Society has changed dramatically since Scouting began, and while the need it there, it is clothed in a new and different atmosphere in the public eye.  Looking back is helpful to some extent, but trying to GO back is foolish and asking from failure.  B.P. embraced change when he began the movement, and all indications are that he also adjusted for societal changes, to some extent.  

Comparisons I see much of the time are like the adage of apples to apples.  The crops have changed, and there are many more options from which to choose.  Too many seem to me to be falling into the same trap our country has, pointing fingers and playing blame games rather than finding new ways and facing facts related to changes in people.  Just my view.  We have much to offer, so lets find a way and work harder on that to make it happen.  

[Eagle94-A1]

On 9/7/2024 at 12:18 PM, PACAN said:

we fire professionals in the past for padding numbers with phantom registrations?

Only if they got caught. Even then, they would try to blame subordinates, even though they were the ones pushing it and doing it. If they were suspicions, and no hard evidence, they were "promoted" to smaller sized councils.

But not everyone being sent to  a smaller council was a screw up. Sometimes it was a way to get rid of the whistleblowers, "promoting" them to a higher position, but in a smaller council. Met an SE who was in this situation. Went from being a DFS with 3 FDs directly under him, and 18 DEs under them to being a SE with 1 FD and 3 DEs under him.

[DuctTape]

Always an issue when performance is primarily based on numbers which are easy to manipulate. I am reminded of the quote (I do not recall who said it), "Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts." 

[Eagledad]

The only way I could track real numbers when I was District Membership Chair was 1 to 1 contact. A very frustrating number is Webelos who join troops but never show up. That number stays on record for almost a year. And it's a pretty high number. Nationally at the time a little over 50% of Webelos did not cross over to troops. But the number is much higher when the no-show cross-overs are added. Which they never are. And, because the no-show Scouts are included in the 1st year drop outs, that number is over inflated. Why is that a big deal; because troop 1st year drop outs is the largest group membership drop out since National started tracking membership.

Barry

Edited September 10 by Eagledad

[Cburkhardt]

Numbers and Firing People.   The principal scandal about inflated numbers occurred in the 1960's and  1970's as a result of the then-national "Boy Power" program.  Professionals everywhere were given numerical growth targets -- both units and members.  It was really a typical sales program, but some professionals could not keep up with the metrics and registered entire troops that were fictional.  In most cases, the practice was to add phantom members to existing units.  Scoutmasters would find names of people during charter renewal that they had never met.  This was relatively easy to do when the cost of membership was extremely low.  Units did not even pay a fee.  With salaries being increased for top "performers", ethically challenged professionals could make money by paying for the phantom membership.  The whole thing came crashing down when the Chicago Tribune broke the story.  A big part of the scandal was that some councils were receiving federal "model cities" grants tied to the number of members, so there was some direct fraud that some professional leaders of the day knew about.  Nothing quite like that has happened since then.

Now days, with member fees being so steep, only a foolish unit leader would register phantom members.   There is just no reason to do so and it would cost the unit dearly.  Finally, the new system will make misrepresentation of membership enrollment a thing of the past.