May National Membership

[Eamonn 61]

TOTAL CUB AGE = 1,141,446 (Down 6.5% from this time last year)

TOTAL SCOUT AGE = 802,959 (Down 4% from this time last year)

VENTURERS = 180,194 (down 10.1% from this time last year)

TOTAL MEMBERS = 2,124,599 (down -5.9%)

 

LEARNING FOR LIFE = 1,597,036 (down -1.6%)

 

Boy Oh Boy,

Things are not looking that great.

I can't get over the number of Venturers that are no longer in the program.

To go from 200,532 down to 180,194.

is one heck of a drop!!

Here in the NE-Region we went from 30,244 down to 26,560.

These 26,560 are in 2,207 units.

That would mean that we have a lot of small Crews?

26,000 Kids from the entire NE-Region? That's really sad!! We have 31 Sea Scouts, that must mean that some Crews/ Ships only have four or five members?

Can they really expect to deliver a quality program to so few members?

Eamonn (This message has been edited by Eamonn)

[Lisabob 13]

I just received membership numbers for our district the other day. We mirror national trends, it seems. I also noticed the size of the crews. Almost all have 10 or fewer members (and we have no sea scouts - which is a shame since we're located in the Great Lakes area and you'd think we could pull off some good programming that would make use of such a resource - but honestly, I'd never heard of Sea Scouts until I came to this forum).

 

Admittedly I know more about packs and troops than about crews. But from what I do know, I think maybe the whole crew program is flawed, from the standpoint of longevity and membership. Most of the crews I've seen are started by people whose kids are either aged out of a troop or whose kids are teens and bored with the troop. A few are started by college groups who want a structure within which to do some fun stuff. Most have specific focal points (the hiking crew/the whitewater crew/the fantasy gaming crew/what have you). Most are more like a pre-existing circle of friends who do stuff together, than a scout unit. Consequently when that circle of friends ages out, moves away, gets tired of the activity or whatever, the crew folds.

 

And I have yet to see any crews in our area recruit new members. What a shame, as we have plenty of boys who are aging out of our troop, would love to stay involved in scouting, and really aren't adults (ready to serve as ASMs or committee members) in any sense except that they're 18.

 

Lisa'bob

[gwd-scouter 11]

We, too, were told about our decline in numbers for our District at last night's roundtable. Quite a drastic decline in all categories. We only have 4 crews on the books, but only one of those put on any kind of program this past year.

 

Many of our troops saw a decline because recruiting was down and a lot of older boys aged out.

 

Our biggest declines in membership are in two areas: Webelos to Scout transition and Tiger to Wolf transition. Do you other forum members see these two areas as your biggest problem in retaining membership?

 

[campcrafter 10]

 

Considering some of the discussions here the past year regarding inflated membership numbers, maybe some councils have straightened up and these numbers are now more Trustworthy.

 

cc

[scoutldr 732]

I find it really hard to believe that there are almost as many LFL members as there are CS and BS combined! I don't know a single LFL member in my council and at district meetings, it's never mentioned. If I were looking for "paper members", this would be the first place I would check.

 

Over the past year or so, I have percieved a general "decline" in all areas of scouting...camporee attendance, RT attendance, etc. As of this date, we only have about 20 CS registered for our district CS Day camp. That's an average of about one scout per Pack. BS Summer camp numbers are abysmal. Camp is filled to about one-third capacity and most of those are out-of-council. (all I hear is "get rid of the heat, humidity, mosquitoes and ticks and we'll come back", but it's no worse now than it was in the 60's)

 

What's going on?

[T165Scouter 10]

I can't help but think the reason for decline is that Scouting has forgotten why they are here...the boys! My council WILL NOT invest in putting on first rate programs that attract boys. Our now non-existent camp had program equipment that was held together by rubber bands, duct tape, and band aids (I kid you not)!

 

When the focus is on the money and numbers, program takes a nose dive which we've certainly seen locally. Boys figure out real quick where they rate in the scheme of things. They will go where they are wanted and appreciated.

[Lisabob 13]

gwd writes: "Our biggest declines in membership are in two areas: Webelos to Scout transition and Tiger to Wolf transition. Do you other forum members see these two areas as your biggest problem in retaining membership? "

 

Yes and Yes. And that's particularly worrisome for us this year because we recruited far fewer Tigers than usual. So if we continue to lose about the same percent from Tiger-Wolf then in real numbers (not %s) we'll be down even more than normal.

 

Actually I just started getting involved with district membership stuff again and it is mostly focused on three things:

1) recruit new tigers

2) maintain existing cub membership

3) webelos-scout transition

 

I find it interesting that the focus is almost entirely on the cub program.

 

Purely from an anecdotal perspective I think we suffer in terms of cub membership because:

 

1) more and more schools in our area are concentrating all of the classes of a certain grade in a single building (so instead of 5 elementary schools they'll have one K building, one 1st gr. building, etc.). So if a certain principal decides not to let the cub packs distribute flyers or do boy talks in his/her school, we lose access to the entire grade for the entire district.

 

2) Tigers often suffer from adult leadership problems because most of the parents are brand new to cub scouting. Then when you go from Tigers to Wolves you lose that "shared leadership" aspect and someone has to step up as THE den leader. I know several packs who lost their rising tiger dens completely because no one would be the wolf den leader. Sad, and frustrating too.

 

3) Webelos-Scout stuff requires tremendous coordination. What I have been hearing is that cub leaders don't think the troops are communicating or coordinating well from their end, and troops don't think cub leaders understand things properly from their end. In fact both sides need to improve but frequently they'd rather point the finger at each other. Largely a matter of understanding how each others' programs work and I find there's an absence of such understanding, by and large.

 

Of course all of the above is predicated on an assumption that units are running strong programs that would otherwise maintain memberships, all other things being equal. And you know what they say about assumptions.

 

Lisa'bob

 

[Eamonn 61]

In our area it seems that the Scouts are long gone before they age out.

The Lads that are left, become the minority with a big band of younger Lads becoming the majority.

One big complaint I hear a lot from older Scouts is that they don't like having to "Look after the little kids."

While I do see Leaders in this forum post news about really great activities that they offer for older Scouts, I just don't see this happening in our Council.

I wish I knew why?

Some leaders just are happy to camp at the same old places and don't seem able to help the Scouts come up with a program that offers them the adventure and challenges that they need. Hey!! Even poking the fire with a stick get old after a while!!

A lot of Troops have fallen into the week at Summer Camp and a big outing every summer.

The big outing is the Scouts playing tourist, visiting places that might well seem interesting to the adults, but they never ask the Scouts "Where do you want to go?" The highlight of some of these trips, from what I hear from the Scouts is a visit to Wal-mart!!

That sounds as challenging as watching paint dry!!

Some adults tell me that the kids just can't afford to participate in the more adventurous activities!

Yet when the Council offers high adventure activities or the Jamboree, most times there is a waiting list.

I believe that Scouts and their parents are willing to pay for a quality program.

High Adventure Venturing Crews, show be able to fill this void.

Sadly, it seems we just don't seem to have the adult leadership who are able to pull this off.

Sure it sounds like a good idea, but so many Crews, with so few kids in them it just isn't happening.

Powder Horn, which I admit I've had very little to do with should help introduce these guys to the activities that these kids yearn for?

To date we have never offered a Powder Horn course in our Council, we just don't have the numbers to fill the course. The few people who have taken it went to Cleveland.(170 Miles from where we are at!!)

Sure they all had a wonderful time, two weekends of playing kid. But it did nothing to introduce them to what is available in our area.We have just about everything on our doorstep, but they rarely if ever make use of it.

While I don't want to get into the "Young Eagle Debate", it does seem that a lot of Troops are just offering MB Classes, which result in Scouts becoming Eagle Scouts at a young age. They may well have leadership skills coming out of their ears, but they lack the skills that would help them really take on challenges and provide real adventure.

So they quit.

With how busy the kid of this age are, it seems really hard to find dates when they are all free.

Mercenary as it may seem, my time is valuable. I don't mind giving up my time to take 25% of the Ship away. That means about 6- 8 kids. I don't think I'd be as willing to take 2!! I don't think they would have as much fun, our Scouts seem to enjoy just being together as much as anything.

Maybe the number of youth required to start a crew or recharter a crew or Ship should be increased? Cut the number of units and improve the quality of the program?

Eamonn.

[funscout 11]

I don't know the membership numbers for my scout district, but I do know that we have fewer kids to draw from, then we did 10 years ago. Every year for the past 10 or more years, my school district has had a decline in enrollment.

 

When I was a kid, families with 3-5 kids were the norm, and I knew of some families with 8 or more kids. Now, the average family has 2 kids. So, I wonder if some of the decline in scouting numbers is due to the decline in number of kids in general? So, if we want to boost those scouting numbers, we have to start having more kids, right?!

[BadenP 93]

Eamonn

 

The small crews of five or so youth you talk about are for the most part LDS crews like their troops and teams have always been small. This really amazes me when you consider on a National basis over 50% of all scouts are now LDS.

 

The other problem is that professional scouters really do not understand Venturing and Sea Scouts, as you and I have experienced. When is the last time you saw a commissioner or DE come to your crew or ship meeting, for me it was one time four years ago for five minutes. I tell you its a crime the indifference councils are showing lately to their units.

 

Case in point I have eight venturers who qualified for either the Ranger, Trust or Quest awards this year. I went to the council office to get the SE's signature on their certificates, he looked at them and asked me, "So what did they have to do to earn these." Thats whats wrong, unknowledgeable professionals who give little support and who don't even understand their own programs. Professional apathy is what is killing scouting today, IMHO. We volunteers have to take it on ourselves to make sure we not only do our own jobs but the professional scouters job as well. Anyone else feel the same?(This message has been edited by BadenP)

[Eamonn 61]

BadenP

With respect.

I don't know or have a break down of membership by CO.

In the NE-Region we don't have that many LDS units.

I also have a different view of the role of a DE. However, I do think it's a crying shame that what I'm calling the quest for quality has eroded my trust in professional Scouters.

Of course there are still very many great people who serve Scouting from the professional side. But even these good people are being asked to push personal ethics aside, by their bosses.

I think in part this is one reason why the turn over is so high.

Eamonn.

[Lisabob 13]

Looking at our district membership information:

 

We have 7 Crews. None are chartered by LDS churches. (We do have a Varsity Team chartered by an LDS church.) All of the Crews have fewer than 10 members. In fact my son's troop has as many members as all of the crews combined.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Eamonn 61]

Looking at the report again.

National Report:

VENTURERS : 180,194

UNITS REGISTERED :17,565

That works out to less than 11 per Crew.

I have heard that most of the VARSITY SCOUTS (56,255) are in LDS units.

I'm in Area 4 of the NE-Region (13 Councils)

We only have 80 Varsity Scouts in 14 units.

We have 1,674 Venturers in 203 Units (8 per Crew/ Ship) If we have 30 Sea Scouts in the Ship that has to mean that there are some very tiny little Crews out there?

1,674 in 13 councils? Even with 100 Units we would have twice as many as we need!!

I don't know if this is because the volunteers are not wanting to join forces and work together? Or if the Pros and Key 3's are starting Crews in order to make Quality District?

No matter what the reason is, it would seem that it isn't working. Kids are leaving the program and are not being replaced.

I don't know what the total available youth number for Venturing is? I'd guess about 12 million ? It should be our biggest "Market" and yet we can only reach 180,194

I think that's really sad.

Eamonn.

 

[Lisabob 13]

Eamonn and others, please forgive my ignorance, but are Sea Scouts considered to be part of the venturing program? Or is this a whole separate niche program? Crews and Ships are listed separately on the info I have for our district (Not that we have any ships, but they're still listed as a category), but from your last post Eamonn, it seems like maybe Ships are actually counted as part of the Venturing program.

 

Lisa'bob

 

 

[jkhny 10]

I'd bet that much of the Venturing loss is pure accounting "corrections." Here a leader trying to start a Crew found that most of the "existing" ones had disappeared years ago. They were ghost units - with less than a half-dozen boys. Councils keep Crews active to show some membership there when none really exists. If "Scouting" was well run and successful you'd expect Venturing to be a runaway success. Not so. Not even close. Why? Perhaps because even BSA doesn't know what Venturing is supposed to be. It's supposed to be a cooler, coed, more adventurous Scouting - all things that seem to scare the hell out of BSA.

 

But the Learning for Life situation is one that should concern ALL Scouters.

 

This IS a problem - and a major area where numbers are "fudged." In effect, LFL allows BSA to "buy" membership using politically directed funding or charitable donations that BSA can't get directly. How many LFL members pay their own dues?

 

A professional noted with disdain the regular use of LFL to fake enrollment numbers. ANY Council where LFL numbers are large should be looked at closely and any Council where LFL numbers are larger than Scouting is screaming for an investigation.

 

BSA's National Leadership has been dealing with dropping memberships in Scouting with faked numbers and contrived solutions. Instead of focusing on Scouting, BSA is putting more and more effort on LFL BECAUSE of the hole they've dug themselves in. BSA can't get political funding and can't get a lot of charitable funding because of their membership criteria. LFL CAN get those funds.

 

Scouting is a time consuming program depending on volunteers. LFL can be run an hour a week IN SCHOOLS using (cheaply) paid part-time staff.

 

Let's be blunt. Learning for Life would not exist if the kids in it paid their own dues and if BSA had to pay for the use of schools and other facilities this program is run in. LFL wouldn't exist without PAID staff to run it either.

 

Learning for Life exists ONLY because politically directed earmarks go to schools for funds that are supposed to be spent on LFL. Schools are thrilled to take the money and have someone else (besides one of their paid staffers) overseeing kids for that time. OR BSA takes charitable funding and "buys" membership by offering to run LFL programs in schools - again saving that school money.

 

This is alot like setting up a Medical Clinic ONLY to take Medicare funds - grabbing people off the street to get "treated."

 

But this is a far easier - and far more profitable - solution to BSA's membership woes than growing Scouting.

 

A long time Scouter - volunteer and paid service - said BSA doesn't even care about BOY Scouts anymore. BOY Scouts are where all the problems are - the child abuse, the risky outdoors activities and more. BOY Scouts is more expensive to run with summer camps and such. It's harder to find good volunteers for BOY Scouts and some of the ones you get tend to be TOO involved for BSA. BOY Scout volunteers pay attention and complain when property gets sold. BOY Scout volunteers are "hard core" and care about Scouting. All in all, he said BSA would LOVE to DROP BOY SCOUTS completely - but that's hard to do when you're called "BOY Scouts of America."

 

In contrast, BSA loves CUB Scouts. Not the same risk factors because there's less chance and less exposure. CUB Scouts are EASY. CUB Scouts make money. CUB Scot Leaders do as they're told and don't last for long. CUB Scout Leaders don't pay much attention to larger issues.

 

And of course BSA ABSOLUTELY LOVES "LFL". Minimal time, effort, and cost - minimal risk - and maximum revenue. ANd LFL can get funds BSA can't get.

 

So....... like many other corporations failing at their stated purpose, BSA is now using a contrived program to solicit governmental and charitable funding to justify its existence. The illusion of "success" is provided through a business that would not exist in an openand competitive market. Would ANYONE voluntarily join "Learning for Life" on their own?

 

If "Learning for Life" is NOT Scouting - as BSA so emphatically states when it comes to taking funds from government and charity - no "discrimination" there - then why does BSA regularly include those counts as part of BSA totals? Why isn't LFL a COMPLETELY Separate corporation - with separate offices and separate staffs?

 

I's all a contrived game - which embarasses even paid professionals who really care about SCOUTING. But you can't speak out - unless you want to lose your job.

 

BSA has yet to explain the continued drops in SCOUTING numbers - and it's NOT all about "changing times" - its a reflection of failing management that has been its own worst enemy.