Scouting America

[Eagle1993]

3 hours ago, Cburkhardt said:

Now days, with member fees being so steep, only a foolish unit leader would register phantom members. 

I agree.  One "benefit" of today's higher fees is that registered members are more likely active members.  I remember earlier on, if our Pack didn't hear from a scout, we would pay for their renewal to avoid paperwork if they decided to come back.  In addition, we had many scouts where parents would pay the renewal and we would end up rarely (if ever) seeing the scout.   Given today's costs, I no longer see this behavior.

I tend to believe the numbers today (perhaps except scout reach).

[RememberSchiff]

8 hours ago, Cburkhardt said:

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.

Many John Doe's 

In 1995-2006,  these two councils inflated (30-40 or more percent) their membership numbers to secure more United Way funds. They documented ghost scouts and ghost units and paid (if registration fee was not waived) the $20/unit and $10/scout registration to National from council funds. Later they recouped that and much more from the United Way.  

Council membership was audited. The FBI investigated this fraud. Some professionals resigned or were removed. United Way reviewed funding policies amid their ongoing concerns about BSA membership discrimination.

Atlanta Area Council  "Operation First Class" 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2005/06/01/atlanta-scouts-inflated-numbers/f60b5e91-0c8d-42da-a749-91a9155fcf08/

Greater Alabama Council:

https://www.parentadvocates.org/nicecontent/dsp_printable.cfm?articleID=6970

Edited September 11 by RememberSchiff

[Eagle94-A1]

Yes, the practice didn't end in the 1970s. I knew councils that did it in the 1990s and later.

A lot of UWs stopped funding because of this.

[Tron]

Phantom members might become a thing with this new 3x3 rule coming out; not for new units but for old units that start to hemorrhage members to new competition. I know in my town there are several leaders from the various different units talking about getting together and starting a new unit when this 3x3 rule rolls out. The side conversation is which of the existing units is going to fold as our town just does not have enough kids to support another troop, but we know the new troop will out perform at least 1 of the existing troops; especially when it grows to 6 or more scouts. 

[InquisitiveScouter]

1 hour ago, Tron said:

Phantom members might become a thing with this new 3x3 rule coming out; not for new units but for old units that start to hemorrhage members to new competition. I know in my town there are several leaders from the various different units talking about getting together and starting a new unit when this 3x3 rule rolls out. The side conversation is which of the existing units is going to fold as our town just does not have enough kids to support another troop, but we know the new troop will out perform at least 1 of the existing troops; especially when it grows to 6 or more scouts. 

3x3 rule??

[SiouxRanger]

7 hours ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

3x3 rule??

I had to look it up.

A National program to allow the formation of new units with 3 adults and 3 youth. Essentially a "quick start" path to unit formation-minimal start-up requirements/machinery. No committee requirement; Council custodial account. Council acts as the unit's committee. Initially intended to be a Council "chartered" unit, all with an eye to growing into a traditional chartered organization unit.

[skeptic]

Okay; maybe workable?  Also seems ripe to be abused if number of units is a stat?   hmmmmm

[Eagle94-A1]

11 hours ago, skeptic said:

Okay; maybe workable?  Also seems ripe to be abused if number of units is a stat?   hmmmmm

Yes, pros are are held accountable for the number of new units they start.

 

[Tron]

On 9/15/2024 at 10:14 PM, Eagle94-A1 said:

Yes, pros are are held accountable for the number of new units they start.

 

Definitely if there is no requirement to maintain existing units. Unit churn could become a real thing. 

[RememberSchiff]

FYI, found this from NAM 2024 presentation Change the Way We Work Together. (26 pages) by

Jeff Hunt, Assistant Chief Scout Executive. EVP, and Chief Operating Officer.

Gary Crum,  Chair National Operations Leadership Committee

Freddy Norton Chair Membership and Relationships Committee had several slides.

 

Source:

https://nam.scouting.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2024/05/Change-the-Way-We-Work-Together.pdf

[Jameson76]

9 hours ago, RememberSchiff said:

FYI, found this from NAM 2024 presentation Change the Way We Work Together. (26 pages) by

Jeff Hunt, Assistant Chief Scout Executive. EVP, and Chief Operating Officer.

Gary Crum,  Chair National Operations Leadership Committee

Freddy Norton Chair Membership and Relationships Committee had several slides.

 

Source:

https://nam.scouting.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2024/05/Change-the-Way-We-Work-Together.pdf

Well, that is optimistic at best.  An organization is projecting 43% growth in 5 years, while they have experienced a 46% LOSS in the last 5 years.

Most businesses would not project that type of growth unless they are rolling out new technology, acquiring a competitor, or expanding into new territories previously untapped.

BSA (sorry SA) does not seem to be planning any of those efforts.  

[RememberSchiff]

Yes compare, the second slide projected data for April 2024 and  the first slide actual April, 2024 data.  Ugh.

[Jameson76]

4 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

Yes compare, the second slide projected data for April 2024 and  the first slide actual April, 2024 data.  Ugh.

Are they different timeframes?  I noticed that the April 2024 membership highlights shows about 775K in Cubs and Scouts.  For the same noted population the graph seems to show 1,014K for 2024 (which could be a goal??) and 966K for 2023 which is 25% under the highlight figure.  

I wonder if anyone questioned the figures or maybe they gave context in the meeting.  Point is, if an organization is not clearly able to state where they are at a point in time, they do not have a realistic hope of moving forward in any cohesive manner.

[HashTagScouts]

4 hours ago, Jameson76 said:

Are they different timeframes?  I noticed that the April 2024 membership highlights shows about 775K in Cubs and Scouts.  For the same noted population the graph seems to show 1,014K for 2024 (which could be a goal??) and 966K for 2023 which is 25% under the highlight figure.  

I wonder if anyone questioned the figures or maybe they gave context in the meeting.  Point is, if an organization is not clearly able to state where they are at a point in time, they do not have a realistic hope of moving forward in any cohesive manner.

I was thinking they were just not putting Venturing/Sea Scouts and Exploring on the plot line, but that was where the difference in the final numbers were. Slide 16, if expected total membership = 1,500,000 for 2028. Slide 17 Cub Scouts and Scouts BSA = $1,380,858 for 2028. Then expecting Venturing/Sea Scouts and Exploring to grow from ~37,000 in 2024 to 119,142 in 2028 I guess? The math ain't mathing.

[Eagledad]

The troop membership trend used to reflect the pack membership trend five years later. But the Cub growth in 2022 makes me wonder if adding girl membership will change that factor. I would be curious to know how much membership changes in the GSUSA from 10-year-olds to 12-year-olds. Do girls lose interest as the program becomes more outdoor? That is when my daughter quit.

Barry

Edited September 18 by Eagledad