Membership Decline Reasons

[sherminator505 10]

"It would be cheaper and a lot less risky to first identify and fix the internal problems."

 

What do you see as the internal problems? My list would be as follows:

 

1) Establish better communication between the lower levels of Scouting (where most of us are) and National. This needs to be two-way communication. The attitude that our input is neither required nor desired needs to change! Pronto!

 

2) Re-establish a training regime that better supports our programs. Leadership theory is fine and good, but we could do a much better job delivering more needed and useful information to the volunteer leaders. They tend to stick around more when we do that.

 

3) Spend less time selling the brand and more time selling the program.

 

 

[packsaddle 753]

What I am seeing in this discussion is a group of dedicated adult leaders who sincerely care, and by this I mean intensely care, about youth and the program that they have volunteered to lead. These volunteers might not agree on everything about the program and they sure don't agree with regard to politics...but they agree about the youth and they are willing to give a huge amount of time out of their lives to serve.

 

I am also seeing concern about demographics and a sense of future of the program that goes beyond the 'now' and beyond boys that are in the program at this time. These volunteers care about the program as well as the youth and they are looking to the future.

Everything about this is good. I see the volunteers thinking about ways to boost membership. I see them doing things to benefit the program as well as their units, with a focus on the future.

 

So with Sherminator's first suggestion in mind I have to ask: Which large organizations are there in this country in which the top leadership seriously engages those at the bottom, especially if they are volunteers, in matters of long-term policy and planning?

[sherminator505 10]

In matters of long-range planning and strategy, I don't expect a lot. But where gathering feedback on such areas as work-area-level conditions and organizational climate are concerned, a substantial number of companies use surveys, evaluation tools and the like to obtain this information in order to make improvements in these areas. The Baldrige Quality Awards Program, for example, recognizes companies that have implemented programs like this to improve their overall operations.

 

By contrast, the BSA makes no effort that I am aware of to obtain this data. In fact, their website doesn't even have a readily accessible "Contact Us" page. The fact that we are volunteers is a non-issue in this regard, as we are the work-area-level operators that are responsible for implementing the program.(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

[packsaddle 753]

Sherminator, are you familiar with the term 'cannon-fodder'?

I might put the DE's at the lower work-area level but we volunteers are expendable. We can be terminated at any time for any reason...or no reason. The trend of volunteerism that Beavah notes insures that there will be an ample supply of replacements.

 

When I was with private industry, I was told that "we are paid according to what we contribute". Those words have served me well and I interpret them in a way that when we are not paid for a service, that service is unlikely to be valued very highly. There is no reason that advice from us would be valued any higher. I would add that this might be more likely the view by persons whose jobs are oriented around money...and the getting of it.

I am with you on the wishful-thinking side. On the reality side, I fear that evidence tends to go against us.

[Twocubdad 665]

Thinking in terms of top and bottom of the organization is part of the problem. BSA needs to think in terms of customers (boys) and shareholders (leaders). Thinking of it in those terms, you tell me what national organizations do a good job of engaging their customers and shareholders?

 

The century old model of only counting CORs as stakeholders has got to go. BSA treats CORs like a bunch of gadflys at company annual meeting. You have your 15 minutes of fame in April, but you're tolerated once a year because those are the rules.

 

In the real world, shareholders get to vote with their feet everyday. Unfortunately, BSA doesn't get a minute-by-minute ticker of what it's volunteers think of it's performance, but it should be managed as if it did.

 

I think we do a reasonable job of tailoring the product (program) to meet the needs of the customers (boys). Everyone has an opinion there, just like everyone has an opinion updates and new releases of other products.

 

Basementdweller's comment that camping isn't as popular as is once was it in the right direction, but there is a subtle difference. I think kid's perception of camping and the outdoor program is substantially different than it was a generation ago. When I was a scout we were happy as clams to go out in the woods, spend the weekend staring into a campfire, BS-ing with our buddies and making a big pot of chili.

 

Now, kids have the expectation that ever outing should look like a Mountain Dew commercial. Not only do they want to mountain bike down El Capitan, they want helicopter rides to the top they want pizza and the latest video game at the end of the day. Truth is, many of our Scouts get this kind of entertainment with their families. Several families have places on the river with ski boats and PWCs. Going to summer camp, waiting with six other kids and then skiing with all the BSA restrictions is no adventure. If you've spent most every Christmas vacation of your life in Colorado skiing, going to West Virginia with 10,000 other Scouts is no treat either.

 

This is the end result of more affluent families, two incomes, fewer children and over-indulgent parents, as someone mentioned earlier. Frankly, our troop struggles to top these adventures. Even when we offer something like Philmont or SeaBase, the lure of high adventure is often offset by the work demands of a Scout-led program.

 

A couple years ago one of my ASMs was rubbing my nose in the fact that his daughter's church group did more backpacking than our troop. His daughter loves backpacking and he couldn't understand why a Scout troop couldn't have the same great experiences at the church.

 

I couldn't understand how this girl was doing any sort of backpacking at all in that she had never camped a night in her life. The short version is that the backpacking trips are totally guided. The kids show up at the outfitter and the entire trip is laid out for them -- no planning, no effort at all. All equipment is provided. All the kids needed was boots and clothes. Food is provided by the guide service and meals are cooked by the guides. Food, water and equipment was staged along the way to lighten the loads.

 

Compare that to how a similar BSA trip would be run and I think you see the competition.

 

As an aside, I'm curious to know what will happen to the UK's huge spikes in membership when all those new members figure out that Scouting trips don't all look like one or Bear Grylls's shows?

[Scoutfish 16]

Now here's another thought....and I do not mean - in any way- to say that this is the only reason why, but rather, one of MANY reasons.

 

So there's a decline in members? Is it that the number of people are dropping out,or is it that not so many NEW scouts join up?

 

Sure, there are always those who join up witn a pre set idea in their mind of what things will be, and then when the real world kicks in, they leave. Happens everywhere.

 

But look at it a slight bit differently for a minute. Matter of fact, think like movies. Or rather, the mistake that the "popularity guru's" make!

 

How many times do you hear about how great a movie must be because of the number of people who went to see it? The thing is though...that's just wrong logic! Why? Because nobody knows if the movie is any good until AFTER the PAID the ticket. So in reality, the only thing ticket sales actually shows is how gtreat the PUBLICITY the movie got!

 

Okay, back to scouting. If the number of NEW members is the reason for decline...meaning that the number of new people joining up is dropping..well,it can't be due to the change in this program or that program. Why? Because these NEW people have no freaking idea of the difference, the change or whatnot. They ARE NOT lamenting how it used to be better because they are BRAND NEW! They do not have a clue about "the good old days " of scouting.

 

So where does that leave us?

 

With the previews. The advertising and the publicity. Just like the movies.

 

But as pointed out before, the amount of competition is staggering now days as compared to 10, 20, 30, even 40 years ago.

 

No 250 channel cable boxes or satelite tv's. No X-boxes or Wii's. No laptops or even the kids own computers in their rooms.

 

I see my two tenage nieces text who knows who for hours during family get togethers during the holidays. Matter of fact, they will text each other from across the room instead of verbally talking to each other.

 

Now add in all the new clubs, arcades, and hangouts that we couldn't even dream of years ago.

 

Tough competition for sure!

 

I love scouting to death, but to todays modern youth... sleeping in a tent and building fires just does not stand a chance next to instant messaging and having the world at your fingertips!

 

Again, I will not even imply that this is the whole or only reason, but I'd place it before changes in the program.(This message has been edited by scoutfish)

[Basementdweller 608]

Selfish Parents

 

That is a matter of fact. Have a gentleman I work with who complains that he hasn't had a decent vacation since his kids were born. I was thinking to myself that I had the best vacations since my children have been born.

 

It is easy to sit at a baseball game and yell. It is harder to talk about honesty, trust, religion, and character.

[Basementdweller 608]

Eagle,

 

In our City we have three churches that have 10k-20k members. They are completely absorbed by the church and its function, I equate it to a Cult. They are only friends with the members of the church. The children only are active in church functions, the youth group. Several of our recruiting schools have high concentrations of these church members.

 

I have to agree with the statement about computers, xbox, nintendo. Texting is a huge problem during the meetings. I didn't have to worry about that when I was in scouts. Heck if I was luck our Party phone line wasn't being used I could make a rotory phone call. Ours would have three short rings.

[emb021 16]

"Establish better communication between the lower levels of Scouting (where most of us are) and National."

 

Agree. People need to look to how other non-profit member organizations operate. Are no one else here part of one? Most groups try to be more transparent in the organization. That is, the leadership at all levels are known to the members. Some orgs even provide ALL members with a members guide with all the contact information of all national leaders, and any national committees. Now, some members may be oblivious of things beyond their local level, but for those who want to get involved, its usually pretty easy to do so. More so then in the BSA.

 

Also, in most such organizations, the leaders are willing to interact with the members, both on-line (email, listserves, FB, etc) and in person at events. Compare this with the BSA telling the Venturing youth leadership that they CAN'T interact with others on-line in forums and the like.

 

By being more transparent, BSA National would know better how things are going.

 

"Re-establish a training regime that better supports our programs."

 

Agree. This mania for "program neutral" training is a mistake, as it doesn't help support the programs. NYLT being program neutral doesn't help either the Boy Scouts or the Venturers attending this, as it doesn't support the different programs of the youth, nor help prepare them in running their units by modeling for them the ideal troop or crew. Same for adult training.

 

 

I would also say that in addition to what Twocubdad said about CORs, that the volunteer leaders of the BSA need to be the ones with the power, not the professionals. In most non-profit member orgs, the volunteer leadership run things, with the professionals assisting them and handling the business side. (the pros work for the members, not the other way around) The BSA professionals should have NO say in who the volunteer leaders are (ie, no say in who takes on roles at the National, Regional, Area, Council or District levels). Frankly, if the BSA did a better job of getting good, dedicated volunteers involved in various national committees, rather then use the positions be treated like some political goodies to dole out, that could help with communication and feedback.

 

[packsaddle 753]

TwoCub, while I am glad you are attempting to see this in market terms, and while I do agree that the customers are the boys and their families, in a corporation the stockholders not only invest their wealth in a way that they hope will either retain or enhance that wealth, they also take on the ownership and risks, proportional to those investments. While I am a strong advocate of the application of a market approach to the organization and market forces to its operation, I can't see the application of the analogy to BSA as it is currently structured.

The investment by the volunteers confers neither control nor ownership. But I do appreciate the idealistic way that we volunteers dedicate our lives and the idealistic expectations we seem to maintain as well.

 

Edited part: emb021, the way that the volunteers could exercise control would require the volunteers to be organized so that they could speak with a collective voice. The only leverage such a collective voice could have is the prospect of withheld service. Unlikely, I suspect, to happen.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[sherminator505 10]

Volunteers or not, I wonder if it speaks well for any organization to have too large a disconnect between the executive leadership and the workers, whether perceived or actual. Now I am not expecting that somehow some sort of democracy will spring up or that there will be some sort of volunteer uprising. Not only is that a completely unrealistic expectation, but I doubt the results would be good for the organization.

 

What I would like to see some awareness on National's part that the directives and policies that they issue have to be implemented by volunteers in the field. I would like to see that the implementations are tracked and monitored, and that the results are being evaluated to determine effectiveness. And I would like to see some defined mechanism where changes and improvements can be submitted for study by volunteers who are in the best position to see opportunities for improvement. These things would demonstrate that the organization's decision-making processes are based on real-world data.

[packsaddle 753]

What incentive is there for 'National' to change anything...IF they are continuing to collect their salaries and raises? Within the organization they ARE absolute power for policy and planning. There is no way to impose anything on them, short of a 'strike' by the volunteers (unlikely) or a complete loss of customers (also unlikely).

Yes, the customer base may be declining. The same equivocal arguments made in this thread for factors that may contribute to this trend also provide convenient rationalizations for those in BSA policy and planning as to why BSA policy and planning is not at fault. A council or district here or there may have to be consolidated. A summer camp may have to be closed and sold. But the pros who are left will remain circled around their incomes.

 

The worst that can happen is that BSA may decline to the point where it has a very small niche within youth organizations...but a niche large enough to support those aforementioned salaries. And with LDS support and a Congressional Charter.

Volunteers can take credit at the unit level for 'fluffing the pillows' for those salaried employees. Volunteers can congratulate themselves for keeping things from getting worse, perhaps. They will get no such praise from anyone else. And they are unlikely to be 'given' any power from those who have it now and as well have no reason to give it up.

[Eagle92 110]

Base,

Understand and yep it is almost cult like. In my neck of the woods, a bunch of the churches either receated their own league sport program, or adopted one that is played amongst themselves.

[LIBob 10]

Scouting membership in both the UK and Canada have also been in steep decline, in fact their decline is much more serious than ours.

 

I'm guessing therefore that the source of the decline has more to do with family life in the Gameboy age than with any particular court case or BSA policy.

 

Moreover I'm not a big fan of the steps the UK and Canada took to "fix" the problem. Each country chose to "modernize" scouting.

 

In Canada's case the decline continues but that may be because of the growth of an alternative "traditionalist" scouting movement in Canada.

 

More on each of those countries in a moment.(This message has been edited by LIBob)

[LIBob 10]

UK Scouting

counted 671,000 members at the start of the 1990s had declined to around 446,000 by 2006.

 

Hoping to address this UK scouting modernized in a number of ways, each pack/troop was allowed to become co-ed. All senior scout groups (Venture scouts) were required to become Co-ed. Scouting UK made a special effort to reach out to British Muslims and encouraged the creation of Mosque sponsored troops.

 

The program was also modernized to a point the traditional scout skills such as camping and first aid wee less emphasized. By 2006 UK scouting awarded more computer MB and more religion MBs than First aid or Camping MBs.

 

The result?

- A group of scouts split off and formed a parallel scouting group (Baden-Powell Scouts) dedicating to restoring the roots and traditions of scouting as envisioned by B-P.

- UK Scoutings cub program began picking up members rapidly, so rapidly in fact they have had to establish a 29,000-kid waiting list because there are not enough adults who have volunteered as leaders.

- A few years later (as those kids grew older) their Boy Scout program saw 5-6% growth rates annually

 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1557502/The-Gameboy-generation-returns-to-the-Scouts.html

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scout_Association#cite_note-19

 

http://www.scouts.org.uk/news/140/scouting-continues-to-grow

 

http://www.scouts.org.uk/news/288/scouting-sees-biggest-membership-surge-in-40-years

 

http://www.netpages.free-online.co.uk/sha/crisis.htm

 

 

 

 

Scouting in Canada

saw sharp membership declines in the late 1990s. They attempted to modernize the program by

- opening several new sections that did not require the Scout law and expunged all references to God.

- Making all sections (Cubs Boys Scouts etc.) 100% co-educational.

- Adopting a global warming awareness program.

 

The results? Well its hard to say. In 1998 number of scouts (tens of thousands I presume) left the program and formed a parallel program affiliated with the Baden-Powell Scouting association. Their numbers continue to free-fall but many of those scouts may have joined the BP scouts so raw numbers are kind of an apple-to-oranges comparison.

 

 

Canada Scouting membership:

1995 172,680

2005 142,200

2009 74,626

 

http://scoutdocs.ca/Membership_Retention/node5.html

http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2000/09/07/ott_scout000907.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scouts_Canada

http://www.scouts.ca/dnn/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=e8KkQmu0Vvc%3d&tabid=54&mid=759

(This message has been edited by LIBob)