RE: NUMBERS - NUMBERS - NUMBERS
(no name) ((no email))
Wed, 2 Dec 1992 15:31:08 CST
Agian, I am sorry that this topic has been discussed before...I think
that we are still discussing a slant on it. However, personal concerns
have kept me from posting to the list as often as I was, and I am now
catching up (started last evening) with over 300 messages to file,
copy and print for future reference.
TOM BENNETT <TBENNETT@MEDIA.AVS.UAKRON.EDU> writes:
>Dear All Professionals and Past Professionals,
>I would be interested in having as many of the Pro/ExPro folks as are willing
>to tackle the issue as possible talk about why the emphasis is on "Balanced
>Growth" instead of retention. Growth assumes the need to recruit more. I could
>point out that if we retain (don't laugh) 100% of the Scouts recuited we only
>have to recruit 1 to achieve balanced growth.
This is something that a lot of volunteers ask their professionals.
"Why the emphasis on balanced growth instead of keeping those in the
programs?" The answer, quite simple and unbashful, is because our
salaries depend upon growth. Scouting should not be a stable program,
but rather on which grows based upon the successes of the previous
Tom, you are correct in saying that if you keep every Scout you get
and then the following year, get one more, that this would be
"balanced growth". However, in reality, this does not happen. Since
Scouts have many other possible positive (little leagues, dance and
arts classes, video arcades) and negative (gangs, "hangin' on the
street, drugs) and neither (personal friends, family
interest/pressure) influnces, we have to constantly keep our units at
the same (or better!!) level than what was acheived last year.
And to do that, involves a lot of recruiting...more now than in the
past five years or so.
>In my humble opinion the way to look at a program is retention. Why are the
>folks at national/region/council/district looking at the bottom line and not at
>the numbers that make up the bottom line?
They do. Its just that the bottom line is what determines a
"successful District" as opposed to a "dead district". And the bottom
line is the number of youth registered over a year ago numbers; the
number of units chartered against what was there a year back; and the
type of units (in a full-service District) in the District as opposed
to what was there the previous year. The same can be said for the
Council and the Regional wrapups as well.
>If there is not a change in the system at some point all of the youth would be
>past Scouts and there would not be a large enough pool of youth to recruit from
>to maintain balanced growth.
Yeah...and the balanced growth targets would have to be changed to
reflect that. We have lots of "former Scouts" out there and no real
mechanism to get them back. We had thought that the new program
enhancements would do it, but as you and I both know, this did not
>Develop retention figures for the end of one year, the second year, the third,
>etc. (90% of the scouts recruited last year rechartered with us). Then to be
>sure that these numbers are meaningful lets bolt on a quality standard - maybe
>advancement at a rate of not more then 2 times the minmum time possible. Or
>some other meaningfull measure.
>Maybe the number of Webelos that bridge over into the Scout program would be a
>good measure of the program.
Or the number of Eagle Scouts?? This was a Council standard a while
back and then lots of local Councils could not meet the standard (one
Eagle Scout per unit per district....in other words, in a district
with 36 Scout Troops, 36 Eagles would have to be produced in order to
meet the growth standard. Now you can see why there had to be massive
changes in the way we emphasized advancement in Scouting!
>I know this might be a somewhat volitile issue. It is out of frustration that
>I am writing this not out of anger. Programs, plans, everything stops for 30
>days so we can recruit, recruit, recruit, recruit. I think that this is a
>matter of knowing how big we want the organization to be and not working to
>make it as big as it can be! That means that if the program is not in place to
>support 100 Scouts maybe we shouldnot try to get 100 scouts into the program!
30 Days?? In most Councils, it stops for 45 days or more! I'll
explain that in a followup posting!
>Great Trail Council
( Settummanque, the blackeagle... ) )
((MAJ) Mike L. Walton (among other "endearing" names) ( )
( (insert good paying job here with lots of benefits!) ___)_ )
( Phone 502-782-7992 | |] )
(3201-D Cave Springs Avenue -- Greenwood, KY 42104-4439 -------- )
( WALTOML@WKUVX1 / "No such thing as strong coffee, only weak people" )
Terry Howerton Sakima Group, Inc. SCOUTER Magazine Kansas City