Springtime Perspectives on Loyalty · Springtime Perspectives on Loyalty Spring 2015 Survey Cycle Report: Executive Summary, Key Findings and Council Template Worksheets Plus Mid-Year

Springtime Perspectives on Loyalty

Spring 2015 Survey Cycle Report: Executive Summary, Key Findings and

Council Template Worksheets

Plus Mid-Year JTE Results for Council/District NPS

Table of Contents Overview

The Bigger Picture: Why Voice of the Scout Exists 3 Net Promoter Score Methodology 5

Na3onal Findings

Data FoundaBon 8 NaBonal Net Promoter Score Trend 9 ExecuBve Summary 10 Key Findings 12

Segment Audience Findings / Council Worksheets Cub Scouts 15 Cub Scout Parents 20 Boy Scout/Venturers 25 Boy Scout Parents 30 Youth-‐facing Volunteers 35 Council/District Volunteers 42 Chartered OrganizaBon 46

Data Source Index

Mid-‐Year JTE VOS Results 52 Historical VOS Data Tables 58

Produced on May 11, 2015 Page 2

The Bigger Picture: Why Voice of the Scout Exists In the past several years, the Boy Scouts of America has created a series of measurements to help gauge the organizaBon’s overall strength in key strategic areas. CollecBvely, these criteria are known as the Journey to Excellence (JTE) recogniBon program. JTE was adopted in 2010 and has provided BSA councils ways to track progress and long-‐term sustainability and to recognize and reward our councils, districts and units. The only gap in JTE at the Bme of adopBon was a metric to capture the experiences members, parents and volunteers have with ScouBng. In Spring 2012, the Voice of the Scout was launched to fill that void, and since then Voice of the Scout (VOS) surveys have been sent every spring and fall. The intent of the Voice of the Scout is to recognize the delivery of excepBonal ScouBng experiences. While membership retenBon and growth rates tell us what has occurred in the past, the Voice of the Scout provides insight on how well ScouBng is serving youth today. VOS has already proven to be a true ‘weathervane’ of how ScouBng is perceived and experienced by members. So while response rates and findings can fluctuate, the overall story told by VOS is a valid one with over 800,000 responses collected in three plus years and seven cycles. VOS findings have begun and will conBnue to impact how programs are delivered, with a focus on developing becer ways to support ScouBng units. From training to technology, VOS is providing member-‐driven insight on how to keep ScouBng strong.


Voice of the Scout Methodology Overview

WHEN ARE SURVEYS SENT: Surveys are sent twice each year, on the first Tuesdays in March and October. Survey invites are sent to emails from the naBonal database (Akela). The lists for the survey distribuBons are pulled out of Akela on the 31st of January and August, respecBvely. WHO ARE SURVEYS SENT TO: Seven segment audiences receive the VOS survey—Cub Scouts, Cub Scout Parents, Boy Scouts/Venturers, Boy Scout Parents, Youth-‐facing Volunteers, Council/District Volunteers and Chartered OrganizaBon RepresentaBves. To be invited to take the VOS survey, an individual must have been registered in ScouBng 90 days prior to the survey distribuBon list pull from Akela. Only those with current membership dues are included. In Spring 2015, approximately 1.4 million survey invitaBons were emailed. Youth under 14 are not surveyed directly, their survey is at the end of the parent survey to allow for parental consent. COLLECTION AND MEASUREMENT: Surveys are kept open for approximately two weeks. Reminder invites are sent out one week aeer the iniBal invite is distributed. Survey measurement is centered around the Net Promoter Score, a recommendaBon-‐based approach to gauging member loyalty. AddiBonal experience-‐oriented quesBons are included in the survey to help make feedback more acBonable. DYNAMIC REPORTING: Once feedback is provided and the survey is closed, all feedback is aggregated and displayed on the Voice of the Scout dashboard at regional, area, council and district levels. This is available to most council/district professionals and volunteers on MyScouBng and MyBSA. The naBonal-‐level comprehensive report and infographic are posted in the Voice of the Scout SecBon at www.scouBng.org/jte. To help address member dissaBsfacBon with ScouBng, adult members with low NPS scores have the opportunity to request a council employee contact them about their experience. These requests are included in the Experience Recovery Report posted on MyBSA. Council execuBves can grant permission to other professionals to access this report.


Mechanics of Measuring “Loyalty”: The Net Promoter Score (NPS)*

The Net Promoter Score is based on one quesBon with a 0-‐10 agreement scale that answers How likely it is that someone would recommend Scou3ng to family or friends?

Detractors answer 0-‐6 Passives answer 7-‐8 Promoters answer 9-‐10

The Net Promoter Score measures ‘loyalty’ by the % of Promoters minus the % of Detractors

Ideally, increasing loyalty means an organizaBon is increasing Promoters by reducing Detractors

Increasing Promoters will result in retaining and

growing membership.

Pg 5 100 -‐100

If all respondents rate a “6” or lower, NPS would be -‐100

If all respondents rate a “7” or “8” NPS would be 0

If all respondents rate a “9” or “10” NPS would be 100

(Yet, NPS can also increase by reducing Detractors and increasing Passives)

NPS is one quesBon that provides an index to track how well an organizaBon serves people, be it customers or members. The way people answer the NPS quesBon creates three ways to ‘know’ where members stand: as Promoters (fans who will recommend the organizaBon to others); as Passives (those who are basically saBsfied); or as Detractors (those who are at-‐risk and may be damaging to the brand).


* Net Promoter™, NPS™ and Net Promoter Score™ are trademarks of Satmetrix Systems, Inc., Bain & Company and Fred Reichheld.

Loyalty (NPS)

Loyalty Driver

Loyalty Driver

Loyalty Driver

Loyalty Driver Loyalty

Driver

Loyalty Driver

Loyalty Driver

What Drives NPS: Opera3onal Insight From ‘Key Driver’ Ques3ons For each Voice of the Scout segment audience’s survey, seven addiBonal quesBons beyond the Net Promoter Score quesBon are asked. Unlike the NPS 0-‐10 recommendaBon scale, these addiBonal driver quesBons are based on a 7-‐point agreement scale and help determine the quality of the experience they are having in ScouBng. Driver quesBons can help give councils insight on where Bme can best be spent to improve upon their NPS standing. Over the six survey cycles to date, some of these driver quesBons have proven to be more powerful than others for determining what impacts loyalty. In the following slides that report driver quesBon findings, those with the VOS microphone icon idenBfy key drivers.

The microphone icon in this report shows what the key drivers are for each segment audience.


Spring 2015: National Findings


46.2

38.7 36.2 43.3

Spring 2012 Fall 2012 Spring 2013 Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Fall 2014 Spring 2015

Na3onal NPS Trend Line

Voice of the Scout: Spring 2015 Data Founda3on

Total Number of Responses: 101,036 Na3onal Response Rate: 7.0%

Cub Scouts: 3.8%

Cub Scout Parents: 5.3%

Boy Scouts/Venturers: 3.3%

Boy Scout Parents: 7.1%

Youth-‐Facing Volunteers: 7.6%

Council/District Volunteers: 22.4%

Chartered Organiza3ons: 6.6%

VOS Spring Cycle Launch March 4-‐18, 2015 Distribu3on Channel/Popula3on Via email to approx. 1.4 million members Unique Rules -‐  Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts

under 14 are surveyed via parent surveys.

-‐  All segments include

feedback from paid memberships only.

-‐  Invites are sent to those who are registered in ScouBng for at least 90 days.

SEGMEN

T RE

SPONSE RAT

ES


46.2

41.3 38.7

31.5 36.2

46.7

43.3



Na3onal NPS Comparisons By The Same Season: The Last Two Season-‐To-‐Season Comparisons Show Increased Loyalty Scores

Fall 2013 to Fall 2014 + 15.2 pts.

Spring 2014 to Spring 2015 + 7.1 pts.

Execu3ve Summary: Understanding Loyalty in the Midst of Change Requires Acknowledging What is Known and What is Unknown


Many changes have taken place since the iniBal VOS survey. While we see an increase year-‐over-‐year in this last survey, the ability of the addiBonal survey quesBons to explain why is less clear. What is known: The ability of NPS to serve as a weathervane for ScouBng was seen in Spring and Fall 2013. In Spring 2013 NPS scores across the seven segment audiences were more broadly dispersed than any other point in the history of the surveys, at a Bme when uncertainBes on policy made naBonal news. Subsequently in Fall 2013, aeer changes were becer defined, the NPS scores across the seven segment audiences were more Bghtly grouped than at any other point in the history of the surveys. All the while, ScouBng’s Promoters, Passives and Detractors (as well as their insighpul comments) have conBnued to yield excellent levels of insight about loyalty in ScouBng. The methodology has established a solid benchmark for ScouBng to track over Bme, and when leveraged also provides a way to drive higher retenBon levels and, ulBmately, growth. What is unknown: In the last several survey cycles, the effecBveness of seven driver quesBons to explain loyalty levels has been diminishing. Importantly, in future survey cycles new driver quesBons will be tested toward a becer understanding about what drives loyalty to ScouBng. It is how this research stays relevant to address the ever-‐changing environments councils must navigate. For the purposes of this report, instead of revisiBng the condiBons of 2013 in analysis, the following results focus on the most recent spring-‐to-‐spring VOS findings. This acknowledges the seasonality of ScouBng: In that spring experiences are becer compared to last spring than they would be to last fall. This seasonal comparison of spring-‐to-‐spring gives more operaBonal and program context to act upon. In this regard, segment audience worksheets are included to help councils explore their own VOS findings and leverage the informaBon to improve ScouBng in their communiBes.

Bokom Line Up Front: While All Other Segments See Increases In Loyalty, The Decline Of Cub Scout NPS Cues The Importance Of Embracing New Approaches

NATIONAL NPS = 43.3

Spring 2014

Spring 2015


36.2 36.2 34.9

45.5

19.7

37.5

28.6

51.2

43.3 41.6

33.2

61.4

23.4

49.8

36.7

57.4

Key Finding #1: The Delivery Of Fun, Adventure And Advancement Needs To Define The Cub Scou3ng Experience This Fall


Context of the following findings is Bmed with the release of a new Cub ScouBng program, a collecBve effort of over 75 volunteers and subject macer experts in child development and educaBon (see slide 15). Rapid and enthusias3c adop3on of the new Cub Scout program is warranted to address reduc3ons in loyalty. Note: While the incremental reducBons of the Net Promoter Score season by season alone do not cause alarm, when viewed in succession a potenBal trend is idenBfied.

Fall 2013 42.0

Fall 2014 39.6

Spring 2014 34.9

Spring 2015 33.2

Fall-‐To-‐Fall Net Promoter Score Spring-‐To-‐Spring Net Promoter Score

Percentage of agreement for key drivers of loyalty also are showing the following reducBons:

Spring 2013 43.1

Cub ScouBng is really fun. I learn new things in

my den meeBngs. I am excited about gerng my next rank

badge.

90.5%

82.8% 86.3%

87.2%

80.4% 84.5% 84.8%

75.6% 82.8%

Cub ScouBng is really fun. I learn new

things in my den meeBngs.

89.6%

80.0%

87.1%

78.6%

34.9

24.1

36.2

17.4

31.6

45.5

33.2

30.5

41.6

22.3

40.9

61.4

Key Finding #2: Cub Scout Influencers’ Loyalty Growth Shows Marginal Gains When Compared To Boy Scout* Influencers’ Loyalty


Net Promoter Score Changes Spring 2014 – Spring 2015

Cub Scouts -‐1.7 pts. Their Leaders +6.4 pts. Their Parents +5.4 pts.

Boy Scouts +4.9 pts. Their Leaders +9.3 pts. Their Parents +15.9 pts.

In understanding why Cub Scout loyalty is dipping, reviewing their parents and their leaders loyalty scores is also prudent: Spring 2015 Boy Scout Leaders’ loyalty increased 2.9 more points than Spring 2015 Cub Scout Leaders’ loyalty. Example of ac3on for councils-‐ increase agreement on one of the key drivers, e.g. “I have support from other leaders that helps me be an effecEve Scout leader.” Boy Scout Parents’ loyalty increased 10.5 more points than Cub Scout Parents’ loyalty. Example of ac3on for councils-‐ increase agreement on one of the key drivers, e.g. “Cub Scout meeEngs are a good use of my son’s Eme.”

Cub Scout Leaders

Cub Scout Parents

Spring 2014 (light color) Spring 2015 (dark color)

Cub Scouts

Boy Scout Leaders

Boy Scout Parents

Boy Scouts*

* For comparison, the Boy Scout NPS and agreement percentages do not include Venturer data.

Considera3ons On The Bokom Line: Beginning June 1, A New Cub Scout Program Is An Opportunity To Deliver The Best Of Scou3ng To The Next Genera3on

What’s Changing: u  More acBve (versus passive) acBviBes u  More examples on how to apply the Scout Oath & Law u  Simplified advancement and immediate recogniBon devices u  Guidance for planning great meeBngs u  One simplified den leader guide per rank

What’s Not Changing: u  Den/pack structure u  Ranks u  Gender or age u  Den-‐based delivery

Roll-‐Out Dates and Resource Details: u  Now-‐ Hardcopy handbooks available in Scout Shops u  Now-‐ Digital handbooks on Amazon & BSA’s eDocs u  June 1-‐ Program officially launches u  Program roll-‐out & support material at scou3ng.org/programupdates

New Handbooks For Cub Leaders

New Handbooks for Cub Scouts


Spring 2015 Results: Cub Scout Segment

15,895 Respondents 3.8% Response Rate


38.9

43.1

34.9 33.2


Cub Scout NPS Trend Line

53.5%

51.8%

27.9%

29.6%

18.6%

18.6%

Cub Scouts: Leverage New Program To Show Scou3ng Is Filled With Ac3ve, Rewarding Fun!


Spring 14 NPS 34.9

Spring 15 NPS 33.2

% of Promoters minus the

% of Detractors

is the

Net Promoter Score

Spring Cycle Shits in NPS

Promoters Passives Detractors

Cub Scout Loyalty Drivers Agreement Levels Spring 2014 Spring 2015 Sp14 to Sp15

Boys in my Cub Scout group are not mean to each other. 74.1% 70.7% -‐3.4%

Cub Scou3ng is really fun. 87.2% 84.8% -‐2.4%

A family member does Cub Scout acBviBes with me. 95.8% 95.4% -‐0.4%

We have great outdoor acBviBes in Cub Scouts. 73.0% 70.0% -‐3.0%

I learn new things in my den mee3ngs. 80.4% 75.6% -‐4.8%

I earn a lot of belt loops, pins and awards in Cub Scouts. 70.3% 71.6% 1.3%

I am excited about geung my next rank badge. 84.5% 82.8% -‐1.7%

Cub Scouts: Cub Scou3ng Itself Is Fun, Yet When Mee3ngs Or Ac3vi3es Are Boring The Experience Creates Detractors


“I don't know all the requirements and I don’t think my Den Leader knows either.” (Detractor)

“We do fun stuff together. We did a hike, and had Pinewood Derby.” (Promoter)

“My Pack does acEviEes all the Eme so that's why I love Cub Scouts.” (Passive)

“Achievement work is boring someEmes, especially when it happens at den meeEngs and we can't play.” (Promoter)

“I like all the acEviEes and opportuniEes to do more.” (Detractor)

“AcEviEes are fun. Talking-‐only presentaEons can be boring.” (Passive)

“I get bored when there are only things for the younger kids to do.” (Detractor)

”He doesn't know what that [requirements] is or what is needed to complete it.” (Promoter)

For Cub Scouts who comment, the variaBon is limited. They talk about fun and friends and have no issue idenBfying what is boring. When you look at the volume of these comments by NPS group however, the findings show a few key shies. Promoters rarely say Cub ScouBng is boring. They have fun with their friends, go camping and are more aware that they are on a journey that includes advancement through the Cub Scout ranks. Passives begin to report frustraBon with meeBngs being boring more oeen, but sBll acknowledge that Cub ScouBng can be fun. A higher percentage of Passives who commented said they did not know what ‘gerng the next rank’ was about. Detractors comments refer to ScouBng as being ‘boring’ in comments across several of the quesBons. When asked about gerng the next rank, the most common response by Detractors is that they did not know what that was.

What do you hear from your council?


Responses / Response Rate

Promoters Total (%)

Passives Total (%)

Detractors Total (%)

NPS

NaEonal Example 3.8% 51.8% 29.6% 18.6% 33.2

[council here]

[district here]

[district here]

[district here]

[district here]

[district here]

[district here]

[district here]

1.   Source: Go to the VOS dashboard on MyBSA or MyScouBng to source metrics.

2.   Hone In: Aeer capturing district findings, read all comments associated with lower NPS and/or large Detractor

groups. Choose at least 1-‐2 things that you can do to improve ScouBng based on the data.

Spreadsheet Example for Cub Scout Segment Review: Assess Health Of Loyalty In All Districts, Review Comments And Address Reten3on

Council Worksheet for Cub Scout Findings: Three Ways To Make Drivers Ac3onable At District Execu3ve Reviews

Cub Scouts: Loyalty Drivers Na3onal

Agreement %(NPS= 33.2)

Council Agreement %(NPS= )

District Agreement % (NPS= )

Boys in my Cub Scout group are not mean to each other. 70.7%

Cub Scou3ng is really fun. 84.8%

A family member does Cub Scout acBviBes with me. 95.4%

We have great outdoor acBviBes in Cub Scouts. 70.0%

I learn new things in my den mee3ngs. 75.6%

I earn a lot of belt loops, pins and awards in Cub Scouts. 71.6%

I am excited about geung my next rank badge. 82.8%


1.   Key Driver Focus: Statements noted with a microphone icon have a higher impact to driving NPS, if any of these have a low agreement percentage at the council or district levels, explore ways this experience can be improved upon as a priority.

2.   Assess All Districts: This worksheet provides one column for one district’s metrics. Repeat this column for all

districts. Then discover where top performers are and provide assistance to districts that are struggling. 3.   Dig Into Open-‐ended Insight: Each driver comes with an opportunity for respondents to give more detail about why

they answered the way they did. All these comments are available on the VOS dashboard.

Spring 2015 Results: Cub Scout Parents



31.3

38.1

36.2

41.6


Cub Scout Parent NPS Trend Line

53.7%

57.8%

28.9%

26.0%

17.4%

16.2%

Cub Scout Parents: Approximately 1/3 Need Clarity Regarding Where To Go To Get Informa3on They Need About Scou3ng.


Spring 14 NPS 36.2

Spring 15 NPS 41.6


% of Detractors

is the

Net Promoter Score



Cub Scout Parent: Loyalty Drivers Agreement Levels Spring 2014 Spring 2015 Sp14 to Sp15

Scou3ng is constantly reinforcing worthwhile values for my son. 76.7% 80.0% 3.3%

My son learns skills in ScouBng that he could not learn anywhere else. 48.2% 46.7% -‐1.5%

I appreciate the opportunity to parBcipate with my son in ScouBng. 89.7% 89.5% -‐0.2%

ScouBng provides acBviBes my son enjoys. 85.9% 83.3% -‐2.6%

I know where to get answers to my quesBons about ScouBng. 75.9% 67.3% -‐8.6%

Cub Scouts is a great value for the money. 72.9% 72.8% -‐0.1%

Scout mee3ngs are a good use of my son's 3me. 72.0% 71.9% -‐0.1%

Cub Scouts Parents: Delivery Of Scou3ng’s Values Con3ngent Upon Leaders And Their Training


“A change in my son's den caused some problems when the new den leader didn't seem to share the same scouEng spirit as the first one.” (Promoter) “A streamlined training/acEvity website.” (Promoter)

“The pack meeEngs are oWen not well organized.” (Promoter) “[It’s worth the Eme], when they are organized and the Den Leader is prepared they are.” (Promoter) “A beYer understand of what training the parents should get for the leadership roles.” (Promoter)

“As long as the den leader is organized -‐ a disorganized den leader becomes very frustraEng.” (Passive)

“Again, values teaching is VERY leader dependent. Some leaders are very good and some are not as good.” (Passive) “As a den leader, I would like more training on the expectaEons of the Scouts and how to sequence the acEviEes.” (Passive)

“As a leader, the training is lacking. I'm not sure if it is our pack trainer or training overall.” (Detractor)

“More structure and training for Tiger leaders and the ability to accomplish badges on our own.” (Detractor) “Many meeEngs are not well organized, and he gets frustrated by the disrupEve behavior of some kids.” (Detractor)

“Pack meeEngs are not well organized, fairly chaoEc.” (Detractor) “The books and materials reinforced the values, the leaders did not.” (Detractor)

For Cub Scouts Parents, the opportunity to have their son/s engage in posiBve, values-‐oriented acBviBes draw them into ScouBng. Promoters, Passives and Detractors see the program as a posiBve force. In all groups, parents recognize that the delivery of ScouBng’s potenBal varies depending on the leader. For example, across all three NPS categories, the most common comment associated with ‘ScouBng constantly reinforces worthwhile values for my son’ is that it depends on the leaders. The topic of needing becer trained leaders also is reflected across all categories. Passive and Detractor commenters note the need for becer organizaBon of meeBngs, which is a component of effecBve training and support. While costs for the program have shieed, the comment about expense or cost is slightly more common for Promoters to make, versus Passives or Detractors, as Promoters may tend to parBcipate in more acBviBes that include addiBonal fees or may simply have more children in the program. Detractors were more apt to state that there should be ‘less focus on money’ versus referring to the program as ‘expensive’.





3.   Reach Out: Experience Recovery Reports on MyBSA offer a way to reach out directly to those ScouBng serves. This is

a retenBon tool and a direct way to decrease Detractors. Produced on May 11, 2015 Page 23


Promoters Total (%)

Passives Total (%)


NPS

NaEonal Example 5.3% 57.8% 26.0% 16.2% 41.6

[council here]

[district here]

[district here]

[district here]

[district here]

[district here]

[district here]

[district here]

Spreadsheet Example For Cub Scout Parent Segment Review: Assess Health Of Loyalty In All Districts, Review Comments And Address Reten3on

Cub Scout Parent: Loyalty Drivers Na3onal

Agreement % (NPS= 41.6)

Council Agreement % (NPS= )


Scou3ng is constantly reinforcing worthwhile values for my son. 80.0%

My son learns skills in ScouBng that he could not learn anywhere else. 46.7%

I appreciate the opportunity to parBcipate with my son in ScouBng. 89.5%

ScouBng provides acBviBes my son enjoys. 83.3%

I know where to get answers to my quesBons about ScouBng. 67.3%

Cub Scouts is a great value for the money. 72.8%

Scout mee3ngs are a good use of my son's 3me. 71.9%


1.   Key Driver Focus: Statements noted with a microphone icon have a higher impact on NPS, if any of these have a low agreement percentage at the council or district levels, explore ways this experience can be improved upon as a priority.




Council Worksheet For Cub Scout Parent Findings: Three Ways To Make Drivers Ac3onable At District Execu3ve Reviews

Spring 2015: Boy Scout/Venturer Segment



33.9

34.4

19.7 23.4


Boy Scout/Venturer NPS Trend Line

44.3%

45.3%

31.1%

32.8%

24.6%

21.9%

Boy Scouts/Venturers: Maintain Progress By Planning Effec3ve Mee3ngs With Projects And Ac3vi3es That Expand Their World


Spring 14 NPS 19.7

Spring 15 NPS 23.4


% of Detractors

is the

Net Promoter Score



Boy Scout/Venturer: Loyalty Drivers Agreement Levels Spring 2014 Spring 2015 Sp14 to Sp15

Being in Scou3ng makes me feel like I am part of something bigger than myself. 67.3% 67.7% 0.4%

Life skills that I have learned in ScouBng are very valuable. 87.0% 86.4% -‐0.6%

I have a lot of respect for my unit’s youth leadership. 71.9% 73.3% 1.4%

Scou3ng includes ac3vi3es that I am interested in. 77.4% 81.6% 4.2%

Outdoor acBviBes are a key component of our ScouBng program. 84.1% 88.7% 4.6%

Our mee3ngs are a good use of my 3me. 47.0% 47.1% 0.1%

My parents are very supporBve of the ScouBng program. 89.9% 93.6% 3.7%

Boy Scouts/Venturers: Ensure Mee3ngs Are Organized And Produc3ve


“As a Scout, I feel like I am a part of an enormous group helping the community. Each liYle thing we do adds to the pool of good things we do.” (Promoter) “It makes me understand how I am a part of a community, both local and global.” (Promoter)

“Make sure the patrol leaders are there every meeEng.” (Promoter) “Camp every month and use our tents. Let the Scouts plan, purchase, and cook the meals...not the adults.” (Promoter)

“Go to different camps (not just Boy Scout camps).” (Promoter)

“More free Eme on campouts, less instrucEon Eme.” (Passive) “I would create more district wide campouts.” (Passive)

“It is my only real hobby, it makes me feel like I’m part of a community that will come with me for the rest of my life.’ (Passive) “I get to really help out the community in way I'd be unable to do otherwise.” (Passive) “More acEve things at the troop meeEngs instead of si_ng around inside.” (Passive)

“The things that we are able to do and that Scouts all around the world can do is truly remarkable.” (Detractor)

“Make the meeEngs more fun and less like work. Not everyone wants to always work to be an Eagle Scout.” (Detractor)

For Boy Scouts/Venturers who leave comments, their feedback across the three NPS categories shows that ScouBng itself is worthwhile and enjoyable. They all highly value ScouBng’s opportuniBes to engage with their communiBes and the broader world. Boy Scout meeBng structure should be reviewed, based on the fact that it is a key driver quesBon (MeeBngs are a good use of my Bme) with the lowest percentage of agreement (47%). In diving into this further, the text analysis shows frequent use of the word ‘boring’ across Detractors, Passives and, even, Promoters. Structuring meeBngs to be producBve and meaningful is important and has a carry over effect, as Boy Scout Parents’ loyalty is also impacted by a similar driver (MeeBngs are a good use of my son’s Bme). The ‘one thing to improve’ suggesBon for both Promoters and Passives revolves most around having more camping. For Detractors, camping is also important, but it is second to having becer meeBngs.


Spreadsheet Example For Boy Scout/Venturer Segment Review: Assess Health Of Loyalty In All Districts, Review Comments And Address Reten3on



Promoters Total (%)

Passives Total (%)


NPS

NaEonal Example 3.3% 45.3% 32.8% 21.9% 23.4

[council here]

[district here]

[district here]

[district here]

[district here]

[district here]

[district here]

[district here]




Boy Scout/Venturer: Loyalty Drivers Na3onal




Scou3ng makes me feel like I am part of something bigger than myself. 67.7%

Life skills that I have learned in ScouBng are very valuable. 86.4%

I have a lot of respect for my unit’s youth leadership. 73.3%

Scou3ng includes ac3vi3es that I am interested in. 81.6%

Outdoor acBviBes are a key component of our ScouBng program. 88.7%

Our mee3ngs are a good use of my 3me. 47.1%

My parents are very supporBve of the ScouBng program. 93.6%


1.   Key Driver Focus: Statements noted with a microphone icon have a higher impact to driving NPS, if any of these have a low agreement percentage at the council or district levels, explore ways this experience can be improved upon as a priority.

2.   Assess All Districts: This worksheet provides one column for one district’s metrics. Repeat this column for all districts. Then

discover where top performers are and provide assistance to districts that are struggling. 3.   Dig Into Open-‐ended Insight: Each driver comes with an opportunity for respondents to give more detail about why they

answered the way they did. All these comments are available on the VOS dashboard.

Council Worksheet for Boy Scout/Venturer Findings: Three Ways To Make Drivers Ac3onable At District Execu3ve Reviews

Spring 2015 Results: Boy Scout Parents



63.2 61.4

45.5

61.4


Boy Scout Parent NPS Trend Line

59.4%

69.9%

26.7%

21.5%

13.9%

8.5%

Boy Scouts Parents: Group With The Highest Loyalty Level Appreciates The Way Scou3ng Helps Youth Apply Values to Life… And Effec3ve Mee3ngs Maker


Spring 14 NPS 45.5

Spring 15 NPS 61.4


% of Detractors

is the

Net Promoter Score



Boy Scout Parent Loyalty Drivers Agreement Levels Spring 2014 Spring 2015 Sp14 to Sp15

Scou3ng is the best program around to help youth become successful in life. 62.9% 73.1% 10.2%

Scou3ng reinforces worthwhile values for my son. 83.2% 89.8% 6.6%

I appreciate the various opportuniBes to volunteer that are provided in ScouBng. 76.7% 82.9% 6.2%

ScouBng gives my son the opportunity to be a leader in his troop. 84.3% 86.3% 2.0%

I know where to get answers to most of my quesBons about ScouBng. 72.3% 73.3% 1.0%

ScouBng provides the acBviBes my son enjoys. 82.3% 84.7% 2.4%

Scout mee3ngs are a good use of my son’s 3me. 63.4% 65.9% 2.5%

Boy Scout Parents: Shiting The Way Mee3ngs Are Delivered Can Make A Difference In Boy Scou3ng


“There has been quite a bit of wasted Eme. Scout led does not mean we do nothing producEve for 18 months.” (Promoter) “Boy led means a lot of wasted Eme.” (Promoter)

“Have people to help troops go through transiEons in leadership and help troops move from parent led to boy led.” (Promoter) “Council more involved at monitoring Troops. We've been in a Troop with terrible leadership and had to leave.” (Promoter)

“Have a mentoring program for leaders within a troop so the leadership can change every few years -‐ otherwise it can become ‘the same old thing’.” (Passive)

“Leaders need to be more of an example: no bad language, no taYoos, no smoking, clean/nice kept homes/yards.” (Passive) “Some of them are a complete waste of Eme because the boys are not ready to run the patrols…."Fail to plan, plan to fail." (Passive)

“Adult-‐scout direcEon\training for troop meeEngs.” (Passive) “Help non-‐ScouEng parents to understand the aims of scouEng and provide online training for parent to support troop.” (Passive)

“A lot of wasted Eme for the parents, no resources from the BSA.” (Detractor)

“I think we need leaders that live the Scout Oath.” (Detractor) “More focus on adult volunteers, acquiring them, training them, and keeping them involved in the program in a posiEve way.” (Detractor)

“Consolidate training for leaders.” (Detractor)

PosiBve feedback about ScouBng’s program is consistent, in fact this acknowledgement about the program has been intact throughout all VOS cycles. This includes statements lee by Detractors that the program experience can be ‘posiBve’, ‘great’ or even ‘excellent’. That noted, in this Spring cycle the driver ‘meeBngs being a good use of my son’s Bme’ gained importance for parents. When compared with other survey quesBons, good use of Eme draws the lowest agreement of all drivers at 66%. The top comment associated with this driver quesBon for Detractors, Passives, and Promoters alike is that meeBngs are a ‘waste of Bme’. Much like Cub Scout Parents, across all three NPS segments when asked what the one thing to improve ScouBng should be, the answer lee in comments is to improve leaders with becer training, more support and increased guidance.




Promoters Total (%)

Passives Total (%)


NPS

NaEonal Example 7.1% 69.9% 21.6% 8.5% 61.4

[council here]

[district here]

[district here]

[district here]

[district here]

[district here]

[district here]

[district here]


2.   Hone In: Aeer capturing district findings, read all comments associated with lower NPS and/or large

Detractor groups. Choose at least 1-‐2 things that you can do to improve ScouBng based on the data.

3.   Reach Out: Experience Recovery Reports on MyBSA offer a way to reach out directly to those ScouBng

serves. This is a retenBon tool and a direct way to decrease Detractors.

Sample Spreadsheet for Boy Scout Parents Segment Review: Assess Health Of Loyalty In All Districts, Review Comments And Address Reten3on

Boy Scout Parent: Loyalty Drivers Na3onal




ScouBng is the best program around to help youth become successful in life. 73.1%

ScouBng reinforces worthwhile values for my son. 89.8%

I appreciate the various opportuniBes to volunteer that are provided in ScouBng. 82.9%

ScouBng gives my son the opportunity to be a leader in his troop. 86.3%

I know where to get answers to most of my quesBons about ScouBng. 73.3%

ScouBng provides the acBviBes my son enjoys. 84.7%

Scout meeBngs are a good use of my son’s Bme. 65.9%






Council Worksheet for Boy Scout Parents Findings: Three Ways To Make Drivers Ac3onable At District Execu3ve Reviews

Spring 2015 Results: Youth-facing Volunteers



43.5

36.3

28.6

36.7


Youth-‐facing Volunteer NPS Trend Line

47.7%

52.4%

33.2%

31.9%

19.1%

15.7%

Youth-‐facing Volunteers: Delivery Of A Dynamite Scou3ng Program Needs A Thorough, Applicable Training Approach


Spring 14 NPS 28.6

Spring 15 NPS 36.7


% of Detractors

is the

Net Promoter Score



Youth-‐facing Volunteer: Loyalty Drivers Agreement Levels Spring 2014 Spring 2015 Sp14 to Sp15

Through ScouBng, I teach youth skills they cannot learn anywhere else. 65.5% 67.4% 1.9%

Scou3ng is a great value for the money. (added Fall 2014) -‐-‐-‐ 74.3% -‐-‐-‐

I understand the unique benefits that Scou3ng provides to today's youth. 90.4% 88.6% -‐1.8%

I have support from other leaders that helps me be an effec3ve Scout leader. 75.7% 73.0% -‐2.8%

Acending roundtables help me become a more effecBve leader. 30.6% 28.6% -‐2.0%

The council staff provides outstanding customer service. 49.7% 48.6% -‐1.1%

I know where to go to get tools and resources to be a successful leader. 68.7% 69.4% 0.7%

Youth-‐facing Volunteers: Two Key Areas Of Improvement Can Help Leaders Beker Deliver Scou3ng.


“I have gathered strength by the training and meeEngs help with other leaders. Not to count the friendships made!” (Promoter) “Trained leaders culEvate, train and support other leaders. Training is the key for adults and youth.” (Promoter)

“A more proacEve approach to giving new leaders an overview and training by council staff.” (Promoter) ”CommunicaEon with and support of units, the council seems to struggle with this.” (Promoter)

“Council staff is a thank-‐less job. They are professional and under-‐appreciated.” (Passive)

“I have not had many interacEons with council staff. Usually they want us to contribute Eme or money to their projects.” (Passive) “All of the other leaders are extremely supporEve, as are the representaEves from district and council.” (Passive)

“A beYer tool to manage pack/district/council/naEonal informaEon on acEviEes, training, and advancements.” (Passive) “Worthwhile training. Nothing worse than going to a training and feel like you're wasEng your Eme.” (Passive)

“The other leaders in my pack follow their own agendas, and do not work together as a unit.” (Detractor)

“Training that actually helps... It's all so general and superficial and yet we have to keep going to training that doesn't really help.” (Detractor) “Never had to deal with them much. The others I know that have are somewhat disappointed.” (Detractor)

In giving of their Bme, acenBon and care one of the key drivers of the ScouBng experience for leaders is passing the benefits of the program onto younger generaBons. With every VOS survey cycle, this fact has been reinforced. Closely related, the ability to deliver the full benefit of ScouBng requires being properly informed and trained to do the job. All NPS group comments call for becer training and more accurate/Bmely forms of communicaBon. Support to be an effecBve leader can take on many forms: meeBngs like roundtables, group events, sharing plans, providing mentorship, etc. Also, on the importance of value/cost: All NPS groups acknowledge ScouBng is less expensive (or an even a bargain) compared to sports and other extracurricular acBviBes. However, ‘being asked to pay for things’ is more frequently commented by Detractor than Passive Youth-‐facing Volunteers, and it does not show up as a topic at all for Promoters. Training on how to fundraise could deflect these types of experiences for Detractors and Passives.




Promoters Total (%)

Passives Total (%)


NPS

NaEonal Example 7.6% 52.4% 31.9% 15.7% 36.7

[council here]

[district here]

[district here]

[district here]

[district here]

[district here]

[district here]

[district here]


2.   Hone In: Aeer capturing district findings, read all comments associated with lower NPS and/or large

Detractor groups. Choose at least 1-‐2 things that you can do to improve ScouBng based on the data.

3.   Reach Out: Experience Recovery Reports on MyBSA offer a way to reach out directly to those ScouBng

serves. This is a retenBon tool and a direct way to decrease Detractors.

Spreadsheet Example For Youth-‐facing Volunteer Segment Review: Assess Health Of Loyalty In All Districts, Review Comments And Address Reten3on

Youth-‐facing Volunteers: Loyalty Drivers Na3onal




Through ScouBng, I teach youth skills they cannot learn anywhere else. 67.4%

ScouBng is a great value for the money. 74.3%

I understand the unique benefits that ScouBng provides to today's youth. 88.6%

I have support from other leaders that helps me be an effecBve Scout leader. 73.0%

Acending roundtables help me become a more effecBve leader. 28.6%

The council staff provides outstanding customer service. 48.6%

I know where to go to get tools and resources to be a successful leader. 69.4%






Council Worksheet for Youth-‐facing Volunteer Findings: Three Ways To Make Drivers Ac3onable At District Execu3ve Reviews

Spring 2015 Results: Council/District Volunteers



59.4

48.3 51.2 57.4


Council/District Volunteer NPS Trend Line

62.1%

66.2%

26.9%

24.9%

10.9%

8.8%

Council/District Volunteers: Engage, Set Goals And Leverage The Skills Of These Supporters To Advance Scou3ng To The Next Genera3on


Spring 14 NPS 51.2

Spring 15 NPS 57.4


% of Detractors

is the

Net Promoter Score



Council/District Volunteer: Loyalty Drivers Agreement Levels Spring 2014 Spring 2015 Sp14 to Sp15

I have the tools and resources to be an effecBve volunteer. 69.7% 74.9% 5.2%

I feel the council today is very responsive to Scout volunteers’ needs 49.1% 49.9% 0.8%

I get all the informaBon I need to do the work required for my posiBon. 60.4% 60.4% 0.0%

My skills and capabili3es are being fully used in my volunteer posi3on. 65.9% 65.3% -‐0.6%

My commicee/board is definitely effecBve at accomplishing its goals in a Bmely manner. 55.5% 55.8% 0.3%

My district/council is doing everything it can to deliver quality programs to our Scouts. 65.7% 63.5% -‐2.2%

I understand the unique benefits the Scou3ng program provides to today’s youth. 95.1% 95.6% 0.5%

Council/District Volunteers: Have The Highest Response Rates and Comment Volume, Yet Engagement Levels Have Even More Room To Grow


“Watching the light come on in a boy's mind is the best feeling you can take away from the experience.” (Promoter) “Council seems to be very, very busy and understaffed, which results in delayed responses to volunteers.” (Promoter)

“BeYer communicaEon up and down chains of command as well as laterally between units.” (Promoter)

“SEll have issue with not ge_ng membership data quickly and accurately entered into the system.” (Passive) “A beYer way to disseminate informaEon. It is hard to know what is applicable by posiEon in ScouEng on a naEonal, council and district level.” (Passive)

“BeYer clearer communicaEon between volunteers and professionals. Less 'telling' & more partnering.” (Passive) “I was a Scout as a youth and it gave me the confidence I have today. No doubt that I understand the value of ScouEng.” (Passive)

“Just to clarify -‐ I believe in the ScouEng program…but due to bad leadership boys are not ge_ng what ScouEng is supposed to offer.” (Detractor)

“Mostly revenue driven, valuing a program for the youth takes a back seat.” (Detractor) “BeYer communicaEon and organizaEon. Not just info on the website (don’t have Eme to revisit consistently) but also in emails as reminders.” (Detractor)

The opportunity to contribute to the next generaBon of ciBzens and leaders keeps Council/District Volunteers a highly engaged group, as 96% understand and agree on the ‘unique benefits the ScouBng program provides to today’s youth’. In this segment’s survey quesBon set, the statement ‘I feel the council is very responsive to Scout volunteers’ needs’ has lower agreement than all other survey quesBons. Comments associated with this quesBon acknowledge problems with council responsiveness may be due to being short staffed or having issues with staffing, which may complicate response turnaround or fulfillment. However, having solid communicaBon standards, protocol and messaging can help alleviate communicaBon issues, which can also serve to increase engagement and loyalty in the process. In fact, becer communicaBon is also a common topic across all NPS groups when asked what is the ‘one thing I would suggest to improve about ScouBng’. The need for more new volunteers and becer trained volunteers also tops the ‘one thing to improve’ suggesBon list for all NPS groups as well.




Promoters Total (%)

Passives Total (%)


NPS

NaEonal Example 22.4% 66.2% 24.9% 8.8% 57.4

[council here]

[district here]

[district here]

[district here]

[district here]

[district here]

[district here]

[district here]


2.   Hone In: Aeer capturing district finding, read all comments associated with lower NPS and/or large Detractor


3.   Reach Out: Experience Recovery Reports on MyBSA offer a way to reach out directly to those ScouBng serves. This

is a retenBon tool and a direct way to decrease Detractors.

Spreadsheet Example For Council/District Volunteer Segment Review: Assess Health Of Loyalty In All Districts, Review Comments And Address Reten3on

Council/District Volunteer Loyalty Drivers Na3onal




I have the tools and resources to be an effecBve volunteer. 74.9%

I feel the council today is very responsive to Scout volunteers’ needs. 49.9%

I get all the informaBon I need to do the work required for my posiBon. 60.4%

My skills and capabili3es are being fully used in my volunteer posi3on. 65.3%

My commicee/board is effecBve at accomplishing goals in a Bmely manner. 55.8% My district/council is doing everything it can to deliver quality programs to our Scouts. 63.5%

I understand the unique benefits that the Scou3ng program provides to youth. 95.6%

Council Worksheet for Council/District Volunteer Findings: Three Ways To Make Drivers Ac3onable At The Local Level






Five Council Comparison: JTE And VOS For Use During Council Progress Review Mee3ngs (See Index)


Council/District Segment NPS Stats

Council/District Segment

Response Rate


Promoters %

Council/District Segment Passives %


Detractor %

Council/District NPS

NaBonal Example 22.4% 66.2% 24.9% 8.8% 57.4

[Your council here]

[Comparison council 1]





1.   Source: Go to the index of this report to view Council/District Volunteer NPS metrics for all BSA councils.

2.   Cite: Recall the five JTE comparison councils chosen for council performance reviews and note their scores.

3.   Aim: Use the following two worksheets to target key improvements to help drive up Council/District

Volunteer NPS scores in the Fall VOS Survey (emailed the 1st Tuesday of October). Councils can also obtain pre-‐populated metrics of their Comparison Councils by emailing [email protected].

Spring 2015 Results: Chartered Organizations



52.9

9.0

37.5

49.8


Chartered Organiza3on NPS Trend Line

Chartered Organiza3ons: A Partnership That Requires Straigh{orward Communica3on And Economical Ways to Advance Scou3ng’s Opportuni3es


Spring 14 NPS 37.5

Spring 15 NPS 49.8


% of Detractors

is the

Net Promoter Score


57.5%

65.1%

22.4%

19.6%

20.0%

15.3%


Chartered Organiza3on: Loyalty Drivers Agreement Levels Spring 14 Spring 15 S14 to S15

ScouBng has provided a way for my organizaBon to make an impact in the lives of youth. 83.8% 88.0% 4.2%

ScouBng is our partner in providing posiBve youth programs to meet the goals of my organizaBon. 75.2% 76.4% 1.2%

Our organiza3on sponsors units because Scou3ng builds tomorrow's leaders and ci3zens. 83.9% 85.0% 1.1%

Scou3ng is a great value for the money. (added Fall 2014) -‐-‐-‐ 73.2% -‐-‐-‐

Our local council has made sponsoring a Scou3ng group simple and easy. 64.8% 59.7% -‐5.1%

ScouBng families parBcipate in our organizaBon’s events and/or acBviBes. 58.2% 50.7% -‐7.5%

I am saBsfied with the amount of interacBon between the council and our organizaBon. 54.4% 50.6% -‐3.8%

Chartered Organiza3ons: Economy Of Time And Effort and Cost Of Scou3ng Are Top Concerns


“Re-‐chartering has goYen much easier the past couple of years.” (Promoter) “Re-‐chartering is a nightmare experience. We need re-‐chartering to be able to be done 100% online and a simpler process.” (Promoter)

“It seems to me our Council only reaches out to us on the unit level when they want money.” (Promoter) “We have a great relaEonship with our council.” (Promoter)

“Chartering process is clumsy and difficult to complete and get thru to council rolls.” (Passive)

“Let's get this whole chartering and registraEon system online. The paper-‐only method currently used is archaic and cumbersome.” (Passive) “Got to find a way to stream-‐line or make more efficient -‐ the paperwork. Too much volunteer Eme is spent on this.” (Passive)

“Council sEcks their nose too far into local unit operaEons while at the same Eme not providing needed support for units.” (Passive)

“Websites need to be improved / Why not have merit badge books as PDFs for free download?” (Detractor) “Chartering and registraEon is a plain pain in the buY. Compare it to doing income taxes...by hand.” (Detractor)

“Re-‐chartering is not easy and in my opinion more complicated than it needs to be.” (Detractor) “Modernize the organizaEon by taking advantage of technology to streamline the various processes. The re-‐chartering web page requires IE Explorer? Really???” (Detractor)

“I make the interacEon between our council happen, if I didn't, there would be very liYle.” (Detractor)

In providing ScouBng to the communiBes they serve, Chartered OrganizaBon RepresentaBves have long called for simplified ways to re-‐charter, reduce paperwork and simplify the process. These are the top consideraBons lee in the Spring survey comments as well in associaBon with the statement ‘Our council has made sponsoring a ScouBng group simple and easy’ (which has a 60% agreement level compared to 65% one year ago). When asked about the ‘one thing to improve ScouBng’ having more council interacBon and controlled costs are among the top three topics for Promoters, Passives and Detractors for Chartered OrganizaBon RepresentaBves. While comments surrounding cost include rising expenses, the price point of camps and awards was singled out by Detractors. Comments regarding Friends of ScouBng across all three groups suggest campaigns are problemaBc from a Chartered OrganizaBon perspecBve.




Promoters Total (%)

Passives Total (%)


NPS

NaEonal Example 6.6% 65.1% 19.6% 15.3% 49.8

[council here]

[district here]

[district here]

[district here]

[district here]

[district here]

[district here]

[district here]




3.   Reach Out: Experience Recovery Reports on MyBSA offer a way to reach out directly to those ScouBng serves.

This is a retenBon tool and a direct way to decrease Detractors.

Spreadsheet Example for Chartered Organiza3on Segment Review: Assess Health Of Loyalty In All Districts, Review Comments And Address Reten3on

Chartered Organiza3on Loyalty Drivers Na3onal




ScouBng has provided a way for my organizaBon to make an impact in the lives of youth. 88.0%

ScouBng is our partner in providing posiBve youth programs to meet the goals of my organizaBon. 76.4%

Our organiza3on sponsors units because Scou3ng builds tomorrow’s leaders and ci3zens. 85.0%

Scou3ng is a great value for the money. 73.2%

Our local council has made sponsoring a Scou3ng group simple and easy. 59.7%

ScouBng families parBcipate in our organizaBon’s events and/or acBviBes. 50.7% I am saBsfied with the amount of interacBon between the council and our organizaBon. 50.6%






Council Worksheet for Chartered Organiza3on Findings: Three Ways To Make Drivers Ac3onable At District Execu3ve Reviews

Index: JTE Mid-Year Scores and Historical Results



JTE Voice of the Scout: AcBvely parBcipate in the program and improve the NPS on consBtuent surveys.

Gold: Achieve a NPS of 60 from the Council/

District Volunteer segment.

Silver: Achieve a NPS of 50 from the Council/


Bronze: Achieve a NPS of 40 from the Council/


Council Number and Name Response Total

Response Rate Detractor Passive Promoter NPS

144 Abraham Lincoln 36 26.3% 2.8% 13.9% 83.3% 80.6

3 Alabama-‐Florida 13 22.8% 7.7% 23.1% 69.2% 61.5

22 Alameda 10 34.3% 0.0% 30.0% 70.0% 70.0

583 Alamo Area 45 15.7% 13.3% 11.1% 75.6% 62.2

382 Allegheny Highlands 15 17.9% 0.0% 26.7% 73.3% 73.3

618 Allohak 24 18.3% 8.3% 25.0% 66.7% 58.3

104 Aloha 62 18.7% 6.5% 19.4% 74.2% 67.7

303 Andrew Jackson 17 15.9% 5.9% 23.5% 70.6% 64.7

225 Annawon 11 22.6% 27.3% 18.2% 54.5% 27.3

157 Anthony Wayne Area 51 33.3% 3.9% 17.6% 78.4% 74.5

468 Arbuckle Area 6 18.8% 0.0% 16.7% 83.3% 83.3

92 Atlanta Area 121 21.0% 5.0% 22.3% 72.7% 67.8

368 Baden-‐Powell 31 21.5% 6.5% 29.0% 64.5% 58.1

220 BalBmore Area 108 24.9% 10.2% 20.4% 69.4% 59.3

574 Bay Area 25 20.4% 12.0% 8.0% 80.0% 68.0

635 Bay-‐Lakes 72 22.3% 13.9% 18.1% 68.1% 54.2

695 Black Hills Area 13 43.2% 7.7% 23.1% 69.2% 61.5

449 Black Swamp Area 43 23.9% 18.6% 30.2% 51.2% 32.6

6 Black Warrior 19 23.5% 0.0% 15.8% 84.2% 84.2

660 Blackhawk Area 55 22.6% 7.3% 20.0% 72.7% 65.5

204 Blue Grass 35 23.6% 20.0% 20.0% 60.0% 40.0

604 Blue Mountain 36 26.5% 13.9% 19.4% 66.7% 52.8

551 Blue Ridge 56 20.4% 8.9% 26.8% 64.3% 55.4

599 Blue Ridge Mountains 42 22.1% 2.4% 26.2% 71.4% 69.0



227 Boston Minuteman 29 25.0% 13.8% 27.6% 58.6% 44.8

436 Buckeye 49 30.7% 6.1% 24.5% 69.4% 63.3

617 Buckskin 26 17.1% 7.7% 19.2% 73.1% 65.4

509 Bucktail 7 20.0% 0.0% 14.3% 85.7% 85.7

156 Buffalo Trace 39 34.4% 12.8% 15.4% 71.8% 59.0

567 Buffalo Trail 9 26.5% 22.2% 0.0% 77.8% 55.6

584 Caddo Area 4 5.3% 0.0% 25.0% 75.0% 75.0

209 Calcasieu Area 1 8.3% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0

45 California Inland Empire 88 25.3% 12.5% 22.7% 64.8% 52.3

152 Calumet 37 39.2% 10.8% 32.4% 56.8% 45.9

224 Cape Cod and Islands 9 26.3% 11.1% 22.2% 66.7% 55.6

425 Cape Fear 20 10.1% 10.0% 25.0% 65.0% 55.0

564 Capitol Area 97 20.3% 9.3% 21.6% 69.1% 59.8

492 Cascade Pacific 96 21.9% 8.3% 31.3% 60.4% 52.1

11 Catalina 64 30.0% 7.8% 32.8% 59.4% 51.6

83 Central Florida 96 22.6% 4.2% 19.8% 76.0% 71.9

96 Central Georgia 17 16.2% 11.8% 29.4% 58.8% 47.1

296 Central Minnesota 34 39.3% 8.8% 23.5% 67.6% 58.8

416 Central North Carolina 42 30.3% 9.5% 11.9% 78.6% 69.0

91 Chacahoochee 25 21.7% 4.0% 20.0% 76.0% 72.0

469 Cherokee Area 15 23.4% 6.7% 13.3% 80.0% 73.3

556 Cherokee Area 27 21.0% 11.1% 22.2% 66.7% 55.6

539 Chester County 35 23.9% 2.9% 34.3% 62.9% 60.0

118 Chicago Area 26 26.5% 7.7% 38.5% 53.8% 46.2











558 Chickasaw 46 21.5% 8.7% 17.4% 73.9% 65.2

538 Chief Cornplanter 2 7.4% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0

609 Chief Seacle 80 21.2% 10.0% 21.3% 68.8% 58.8

637 Chippewa Valley 33 23.9% 0.0% 15.2% 84.8% 84.8

302 Choctaw Area 6 22.7% 16.7% 16.7% 66.7% 50.0

474 Cimarron 13 20.0% 0.0% 23.1% 76.9% 76.9

571 Circle Ten 151 19.5% 9.3% 25.8% 64.9% 55.6

550 Coastal Carolina 32 21.2% 18.8% 25.0% 56.3% 37.5

99 Coastal Georgia 21 22.6% 4.8% 9.5% 85.7% 81.0

595 Colonial Virginia 31 24.1% 3.2% 25.8% 71.0% 67.7

504 Columbia-‐Montour 15 25.4% 0.0% 26.7% 73.3% 73.3

66 ConnecBcut Rivers 80 33.7% 8.8% 27.5% 63.8% 55.0

72 ConnecBcut Yankee 55 24.2% 16.4% 16.4% 67.3% 50.9

413 Conquistador 19 22.2% 10.5% 31.6% 57.9% 47.4

324 Cornhusker 29 22.9% 13.8% 17.2% 69.0% 55.2

192 Coronado Area 28 27.3% 3.6% 17.9% 78.6% 75.0

525 Cradle of Liberty 69 24.4% 10.1% 36.2% 53.6% 43.5

491 Crater Lake 17 17.0% 23.5% 11.8% 64.7% 41.2

160 Crossroads of America 138 28.5% 8.7% 26.8% 64.5% 55.8

438 Dan Beard 75 20.9% 12.0% 30.7% 57.3% 45.3

414 Daniel Boone 37 25.2% 8.1% 29.7% 62.2% 54.1

330 Daniel Webster 87 25.9% 5.8% 36.8% 57.5% 51.7

13 De Soto Area 9 22.9% 0.0% 44.4% 55.6% 55.6

81 Del-‐Mar-‐Va 45 24.6% 11.1% 24.4% 64.4% 53.3



61 Denver Area 98 19.7% 13.3% 29.6% 57.1% 43.9

147 Des Plaines Valley 32 31.9% 3.1% 31.3% 65.6% 62.5

426 East Carolina 33 13.8% 3.0% 36.4% 60.6% 57.6

585 East Texas Area 25 20.0% 8.0% 36.0% 56.0% 48.0

460 Erie Shores 43 24.3% 4.7% 18.6% 76.7% 72.1

212 Evangeline Area 9 22.0% 0.0% 33.3% 66.7% 66.7

803 Far East 13 18.5% 15.4% 23.1% 61.5% 46.2

375 Five Rivers 22 24.5% 4.6% 22.7% 72.7% 68.2

95 Flint River 28 22.5% 3.6% 32.1% 64.3% 60.7

532 French Creek 27 25.0% 0.0% 29.6% 70.4% 70.4

299 Gamehaven 29 39.5% 24.1% 13.8% 62.1% 37.9

690 Garden State 42 19.3% 4.8% 23.8% 71.4% 66.7

624 Gateway Area 15 28.4% 20.0% 33.3% 46.7% 26.7

93 Georgia-‐Carolina 24 34.2% 4.2% 33.3% 62.5% 58.3

620 Glacier's Edge 40 28.2% 10.0% 35.0% 55.0% 45.0

47 Golden Empire 107 22.1% 5.6% 32.7% 61.7% 56.1

562 Golden Spread 21 22.4% 19.0% 28.6% 52.4% 33.3

10 Grand Canyon 176 16.7% 8.5% 29.0% 62.5% 54.0

614 Grand Columbia 17 14.9% 11.8% 5.9% 82.4% 70.6

107 Grand Teton 94 14.4% 11.7% 26.6% 61.7% 50.0

610 Great Alaska 19 21.3% 21.1% 31.6% 47.4% 26.3

272 Great Lakes FSC 78 25.0% 14.1% 28.2% 57.7% 43.6

653 Great Rivers 33 15.1% 12.1% 30.3% 57.6% 45.5

590 Great Salt Lake 185 16.8% 9.2% 27.6% 63.2% 54.1

557 Great Smoky Mountain 35 16.5% 2.9% 28.6% 68.6% 65.7





412 Great Southwest 65 21.3% 7.7% 35.4% 56.9% 49.2

433 Great Trail 57 25.5% 3.5% 29.8% 66.7% 63.2

1 Greater Alabama 75 24.0% 2.7% 21.3% 76.0% 73.3

440 Greater Cleveland 41 24.2% 12.2% 26.8% 61.0% 48.8

640 Greater New York Councils 39 23.6% 2.6% 20.5% 76.9% 74.4

380 Greater Niagara FronBer 44 24.5% 11.4% 20.5% 68.2% 56.8

312 Greater St. Louis Area 181 26.6% 8.3% 22.7% 69.1% 60.8

463 Greater Western Reserve 39 23.3% 17.9% 15.4% 66.7% 48.7

638 Greater Wyoming 8 9.3% 12.5% 25.0% 62.5% 50.0

59 Greater Yosemite 26 19.5% 7.7% 23.1% 69.2% 61.5

592 Green Mountain 27 33.3% 14.8% 11.1% 74.1% 59.3

67 Greenwich 5 13.5% 0.0% 60.0% 40.0% 40.0

773 Gulf Coast 15 19.0% 13.3% 20.0% 66.7% 53.3

86 Gulf Ridge 49 23.7% 8.2% 16.3% 75.5% 67.3

85 Gulf Stream 21 18.2% 19.0% 28.6% 52.4% 33.3

528 Hawk Mountain 35 17.0% 5.7% 20.0% 74.3% 68.6

172 Hawkeye Area 47 38.2% 10.6% 29.8% 59.6% 48.9

307 Heart of America 216 32.2% 9.3% 21.8% 69.0% 59.7

450 Heart of Ohio 25 22.7% 12.0% 24.0% 64.0% 52.0

602 Heart of Virginia 76 27.6% 4.0% 26.3% 69.7% 65.8

145 Hoosier Trails 37 29.9% 0.0% 32.4% 67.6% 67.6

69 Housatonic 7 31.8% 0.0% 14.3% 85.7% 85.7

374 Hudson Valley 37 22.0% 10.8% 18.9% 70.3% 59.5

133 Illowa 32 24.1% 6.3% 28.1% 65.6% 59.4



488 Indian NaBons 45 16.7% 11.1% 24.4% 64.4% 53.3

553 Indian Waters 25 16.8% 8.0% 32.0% 60.0% 52.0

611 Inland Northwest 44 17.6% 2.3% 31.8% 65.9% 63.6

376 Iroquois Trail 16 25.4% 6.3% 43.8% 50.0% 43.8

211 Istrouma Area 38 21.2% 0.0% 36.8% 63.2% 63.2

197 Jayhawk Area 20 20.0% 5.0% 30.0% 65.0% 60.0

341 Jersey Shore 37 23.6% 2.7% 21.6% 75.7% 73.0

497 Juniata Valley 28 27.8% 17.9% 25.0% 57.1% 39.3

216 Katahdin Area 24 20.8% 8.3% 37.5% 54.2% 45.8

244 Knox Trail 32 38.9% 9.4% 21.9% 68.8% 59.4

165 La Salle 55 33.1% 12.7% 29.1% 58.2% 45.5

328 Las Vegas Area 65 15.1% 7.7% 27.7% 64.6% 56.9

480 Last FronBer 67 23.4% 16.4% 26.9% 56.7% 40.3

527 Laurel Highlands 103 22.1% 11.7% 22.3% 66.0% 54.4

114 Lewis & Clark 53 27.0% 9.4% 37.7% 52.8% 43.4

205 Lincoln Heritage 89 20.2% 13.5% 13.5% 73.0% 59.6

121 Lincoln Trails 20 29.9% 5.0% 15.0% 80.0% 75.0

32 Long Beach Area 21 21.4% 4.8% 23.8% 71.4% 66.7

662 Longhorn 138 23.0% 7.3% 21.7% 71.0% 63.8

373 Longhouse 49 22.1% 6.1% 16.3% 77.6% 71.4

62 Longs Peak 57 26.5% 8.8% 31.6% 59.6% 50.9

33 Los Angeles Area 30 25.0% 6.7% 6.7% 86.7% 80.0

53 Los Padres 25 30.8% 0.0% 40.0% 60.0% 60.0

213 Louisiana Purchase 9 12.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0











35 Marin 17 31.3% 0.0% 17.6% 82.4% 82.4

221 Mason-‐Dixon 22 28.8% 4.6% 31.8% 63.6% 59.1

102 Maui County 9 26.3% 0.0% 33.3% 66.7% 66.7

415 Mecklenburg County 44 23.6% 4.6% 15.9% 79.5% 75.0

444 Miami Valley 32 27.1% 15.6% 21.9% 62.5% 46.9

326 Mid-‐America 79 21.8% 19.0% 34.2% 46.8% 27.8

177 Mid-‐Iowa 68 32.4% 8.8% 33.8% 57.4% 48.5

560 Middle Tennessee 97 17.0% 8.3% 21.6% 70.1% 61.9

696 Midnight Sun 2 6.3% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0

502 Minsi Trails 68 22.8% 7.4% 14.7% 77.9% 70.6

141 Mississippi Valley 32 29.2% 15.6% 31.3% 53.1% 37.5

4 Mobile Area 24 14.7% 0.0% 20.8% 79.2% 79.2

254 Mohegan 24 23.1% 8.3% 33.3% 58.3% 50.0

347 Monmouth 41 27.1% 2.4% 22.0% 75.6% 73.2

315 Montana 61 19.6% 9.8% 19.7% 70.5% 60.7

500 Moraine Trails 17 25.4% 5.9% 23.5% 70.6% 64.7

606 Mount Baker 71 28.0% 19.7% 29.6% 50.7% 31.0

23 Mount Diablo Silverado 84 29.3% 7.1% 29.8% 63.1% 56.0

615 Mountaineer Area 15 23.2% 0.0% 6.7% 93.3% 93.3

467 Muskingum Valley 28 30.6% 7.1% 14.3% 78.6% 71.4

546 Narragansec 33 18.3% 9.1% 24.2% 66.7% 57.6

230 Nashua Valley 16 26.2% 6.3% 18.8% 75.0% 68.8

82 NaBonal Capital Area 266 28.1% 8.3% 30.1% 61.7% 53.4

580 NeTseO Trails 7 13.0% 28.6% 28.6% 42.9% 14.3



329 Nevada Area 41 19.2% 29.3% 12.2% 58.5% 29.3

544 New Birth of Freedom 74 26.6% 10.8% 24.3% 64.9% 54.1

87 North Florida 62 23.1% 8.1% 17.7% 74.2% 66.1

101 Northeast Georgia 68 23.8% 2.9% 22.1% 75.0% 72.1

129 Northeast Illinois 75 34.5% 5.3% 25.3% 69.3% 64.0

178 Northeast Iowa 23 27.6% 13.0% 13.0% 73.9% 60.9

501 Northeastern Pennsylvania 29 24.8% 0.0% 17.2% 82.8% 82.8

429 Northern Lights 53 21.8% 5.7% 30.2% 64.2% 58.5

333 Northern New Jersey 45 25.1% 4.4% 24.4% 71.1% 66.7

250 Northern Star 190 21.3% 9.0% 27.4% 63.7% 54.7

100 Northwest Georgia 13 22.1% 7.7% 7.7% 84.6% 76.9

751 Northwest Suburban 51 28.6% 11.8% 21.6% 66.7% 54.9

587 Northwest Texas 7 15.9% 0.0% 42.9% 57.1% 57.1

215 Norwela 16 23.9% 12.5% 18.8% 68.8% 56.3

421 Occoneechee 88 26.2% 9.1% 12.5% 78.4% 69.3

619 Ohio River Valley 17 25.0% 11.8% 23.5% 64.7% 52.9

249 Old Colony 43 29.8% 2.3% 27.9% 69.8% 67.4

427 Old Hickory 31 22.2% 12.9% 32.3% 54.8% 41.9

70 Old North State 48 20.2% 2.1% 22.9% 75.0% 72.9

39 Orange County 97 19.0% 8.3% 28.9% 62.9% 54.6

106 Ore-‐Ida 49 16.8% 4.1% 28.6% 67.3% 63.3

697 Oregon Trail 50 35.1% 14.0% 36.0% 50.0% 36.0

393 Otschodela 7 21.6% 14.3% 28.6% 57.1% 42.9

322 Overland Trails 13 18.1% 0.0% 23.1% 76.9% 76.9











306 Ozark Trails 49 23.9% 10.2% 26.5% 63.3% 53.1

612 Pacific Harbors 32 26.9% 25.0% 34.4% 40.6% 15.6

31 Pacific Skyline 42 28.9% 7.1% 28.6% 64.3% 57.1

549 Palmeco 29 20.6% 3.5% 27.6% 69.0% 65.5

358 Patriots' Path 80 25.3% 5.0% 23.8% 71.3% 66.3

552 Pee Dee Area 20 27.2% 15.0% 10.0% 75.0% 60.0

524 Pennsylvania Dutch 39 28.9% 12.8% 15.4% 71.8% 59.0

42 Piedmont 18 28.2% 0.0% 16.7% 83.3% 83.3

420 Piedmont 29 15.4% 10.3% 24.1% 65.5% 55.2

60 Pikes Peak 40 23.8% 7.5% 7.5% 85.0% 77.5

304 Pine Burr Area 7 11.1% 0.0% 28.6% 71.4% 71.4

218 Pine Tree 15 12.1% 0.0% 46.7% 53.3% 53.3

311 Pony Express 35 20.6% 5.7% 22.9% 71.4% 65.7

651 Potawatomi Area 47 41.1% 10.6% 27.7% 61.7% 51.1

117 Prairielands 17 20.0% 11.8% 11.8% 76.5% 64.7

781 President Gerald R. Ford FSC 47 23.6% 8.5% 40.4% 51.1% 42.6

661 Puerto Rico 41 17.7% 0.0% 12.2% 87.8% 87.8

691 Pushmataha Area 7 25.0% 0.0% 42.9% 57.1% 57.1

18 Quapaw Area 63 21.8% 9.5% 17.5% 73.0% 63.5

198 Quivira 48 21.5% 8.3% 33.3% 58.3% 50.0

702 Rainbow 20 32.4% 0.0% 25.0% 75.0% 75.0

41 Redwood Empire 36 43.0% 8.3% 22.2% 69.4% 61.1

400 RevoluBonary Trails 11 18.3% 9.1% 36.4% 54.5% 45.5

775 Rio Grande 7 8.9% 0.0% 14.3% 85.7% 85.7



405 Rip Van Winkle 6 12.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0

63 Rocky Mountain 11 16.4% 9.1% 27.3% 63.6% 54.5

162 Sagamore 40 37.2% 7.5% 27.5% 65.0% 57.5

576 Sam Houston Area 184 20.1% 8.2% 28.3% 63.6% 55.4

627 Samoset 48 29.4% 6.3% 25.0% 68.8% 62.5

49 San Diego-‐Imperial 97 27.1% 15.5% 26.8% 57.7% 42.3

28 San Francisco Bay Area 62 28.3% 8.1% 25.8% 66.1% 58.1

40 San Gabriel Valley 33 23.1% 15.2% 30.3% 54.5% 39.4

194 Santa Fe Trail 12 25.0% 8.3% 33.3% 58.3% 50.0

397 Seneca Waterways 63 20.9% 6.4% 33.3% 60.3% 54.0

27 Sequoia 37 22.3% 2.7% 24.3% 73.0% 70.3

713 Sequoyah 34 23.8% 11.8% 14.7% 73.5% 61.8

598 Shenandoah Area 29 24.2% 6.9% 37.9% 55.2% 48.3

55 Silicon Valley Monterey Bay 71 23.2% 4.2% 28.2% 67.6% 63.4

441 Simon Kenton 71 21.4% 5.6% 22.5% 71.8% 66.2

733 Sioux 35 19.9% 2.9% 34.3% 62.9% 60.0

111 Snake River 17 19.4% 11.8% 41.2% 47.1% 35.3

84 South Florida 44 15.7% 13.6% 25.0% 61.4% 47.7

98 South Georgia 23 24.8% 4.4% 30.4% 65.2% 60.9

694 South Plains 3 16.7% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0

577 South Texas 21 20.5% 9.5% 28.6% 61.9% 52.4

214 Southeast Louisiana 31 21.2% 6.5% 9.7% 83.9% 77.4

783 Southern Shores FSC 55 30.2% 18.2% 25.5% 56.4% 38.2

30 Southern Sierra 18 25.6% 5.6% 11.1% 83.3% 77.8











88 Southwest Florida 34 25.3% 2.9% 20.6% 76.5% 73.5

763 Stonewall Jackson Area 53 33.7% 7.6% 15.1% 77.4% 69.8

404 Suffolk County 48 24.0% 6.3% 12.5% 81.3% 75.0

533 Susquehanna 12 15.6% 16.7% 33.3% 50.0% 33.3

664 Suwannee River Area 10 20.7% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0

439 Tecumseh 27 24.4% 0.0% 40.7% 59.3% 59.3

741 Texas Southwest 9 18.5% 44.4% 0.0% 55.6% 11.1

561 Texas Trails 22 30.1% 18.2% 27.3% 54.5% 36.4

386 Theodore Roosevelt 42 24.2% 0.0% 31.0% 69.0% 69.0

127 Three Fires 90 31.9% 15.6% 20.0% 64.4% 48.9

636 Three Harbors 59 29.9% 6.8% 25.4% 67.8% 61.0

578 Three Rivers 8 8.0% 12.5% 25.0% 62.5% 50.0

596 Tidewater 52 30.9% 15.4% 25.0% 59.6% 44.2

802 TransatlanBc 17 19.8% 0.0% 35.3% 64.7% 64.7

589 Trapper Trails 101 11.9% 13.9% 25.7% 60.4% 46.5

5 Tukabatchee Area 19 11.9% 10.5% 42.1% 47.4% 36.8

424 Tuscarora 16 17.2% 0.0% 18.8% 81.3% 81.3

364 Twin Rivers 48 21.0% 12.5% 27.1% 60.4% 47.9

283 Twin Valley 9 13.3% 0.0% 11.1% 88.9% 88.9

591 Utah NaBonal Parks 176 14.1% 11.4% 31.3% 57.4% 46.0

57 Ventura County 47 23.9% 8.5% 21.3% 70.2% 61.7

58 Verdugo Hills 13 23.0% 7.7% 0.0% 92.3% 84.6

286 Voyageurs Area 33 34.1% 3.0% 18.2% 78.8% 75.8

138 W.D. Boyce 36 21.0% 22.2% 38.9% 38.9% 16.7



777 Washington Crossing 63 28.4% 4.8% 27.0% 68.3% 63.5

782 Water and Woods FSC 55 20.6% 10.9% 21.8% 67.3% 56.4

89 West Central Florida 28 24.8% 10.7% 32.1% 57.1% 46.4

559 West Tennessee Area 23 24.0% 4.4% 26.1% 69.6% 65.2

16 Westark Area 36 23.8% 0.0% 16.7% 83.3% 83.3

388 Westchester-‐Putnam 35 27.9% 8.6% 28.6% 62.9% 54.3

64 Western Colorado 8 14.3% 12.5% 25.0% 62.5% 50.0

51 Western Los Angeles County 41 21.9% 14.6% 22.0% 63.4% 48.8

234 Western Massachusecs 33 37.2% 6.1% 15.2% 78.8% 72.7

512 Westmoreland-‐Fayece 24 21.6% 12.5% 12.5% 75.0% 62.5

173 Winnebago 29 33.0% 17.2% 31.0% 51.7% 34.5

236 Yankee Clipper 48 35.4% 8.3% 31.3% 60.4% 52.1

748 Yocona Area 7 11.7% 14.3% 14.3% 71.4% 57.1 573 Yucca 28 20.4% 3.6% 21.4% 75.0% 71.4







Na3onal Trending: Percent Change Per Cycle, By Segment


NPS Scores By Segment

SEGMENTS Spring 2012

Fall 2012

% Change Spring ’12

Spring 2013

% Change Fall ’12

Fall 2013

% Change Spring ’13

Spring 2014

% Change Fall ’13

Fall 2014

% Change Spring ‘14

Spring 2015

% Change Fall ‘14

Overall 46.2 41.3 -‐10.6% 38.7 -‐6.3% 31.5 -‐18.6% 36.2 14.9% 46.7 29.0% 43.3 -‐7.3%

Cub Scouts 38.9 41.0 4.3% 43.1 5.1% 42.0 -‐2.6% 34.9 -‐16.9% 39.6 13.5% 33.2 -‐16.2%

Cub Scout Parents 31.3 28.0 -‐10.5% 38.1 36.1% 32.4 -‐15.0% 36.2 11.7% 57.5 58.8% 41.6 -‐27.7%

Boy Scouts & Venturers 33.9 29.8 -‐12.1% 34.4 15.4% 17.8 -‐48.3% 19.7 10.7% 27.6 40.1% 23.4 -‐15.2%

Boy Scout Parents 63.2 53.2 -‐15.8% 61.4 15.4% 40.3 -‐34.4% 45.5 12.9% 61.4 34.9% 61.4 -‐0.2%

Youth-‐Facing Volunteers 43.5 33.5 -‐23.0% 36.3 8.4% 22.7 -‐37.5% 28.6 26.0% 39.5 38.1% 36.7 -‐7.3%

Council/District Volunteers 59.4 55.8 -‐6.1% 48.3 -‐13.4% 40.9 -‐15.3% 51.2 25.2% 56.1 9.6% 57.4 2.3%

Chartered Organiza3ons 52.9 48.1 -‐9.1% 9.0 -‐81.3% 24.0 166.7% 37.5 56.3% 44.9 19.7% 49.8 10.9%

Na3onal Trending: Cub Scouts


CUB SCOUTS Spring 2012

Fall 2012

Spring 2013

Fall 2013

Spring 2014

Fall 2014

Spring 2015

Net Promoter Score Ques3on (in bold) 6,553

Responses 3,508

Responses 18,260

Responses 3,863

Responses 7,649

Responses 12,549

Responses 15,895

Responses

Driver QuesBons 4.5%

Response Rate

2.4% Response

Rate

6.7% Response

Rate

3.3% Response

Rate

3.0% Response

Rate

5.8% Response

Rate

3.8% Response

Rate

If asked, how likely are you to tell you friends to join Cub Scouts? 38.9 41.0 43.1 42.0 34.9 39.6 33.2

Boys in my Cub Scout group are not mean to each other. 73.8% 72.9% 76.3% 72.9% 74.1% 68.8% 70.7%

Cub ScouBng is really fun. 85.8% 88.1% 90.5% 89.6% 87.2% 87.1% 84.8%

A family member does Cub Scout acBviBes with me. 94.1% 94.2% 94.5% 94.3% 95.8% 96.4% 95.4%

We have great outdoor acBviBes in Cub Scouts. 67.5% 76.9% 76.3% 81.1% 73.0% 79.4% 70.0%

I learn new things in my den meeBngs. 76.7% 77.5% 82.8% 80.0% 80.4% 78.6% 75.6%

I earn a lot of belt loops, pins and awards in Cub Scouts. 65.8% 64.9% 71.2% 73.3% 68.3% 79.9% 71.6%

I am excited about gerng my next rank badge. 83.3% 84.0% 86.3% 84.1% 84.5% 85.2% 82.8%


CUB SCOUT PARENTS Spring 2012

Fall 2012

Spring 2013

Fall 2013

Spring 2014

Fall 2014

Spring 2015

Net Promoter Score Ques3on (in bold) 8,329

Responses 4,565

Responses 18,260

Responses 5,885

Responses 11,257

Responses 15,226

Responses 19,728

Responses


Response Rate

3.4% Response

Rate

6.7% Response

Rate

4.9% Response

Rate

4.5% Response

Rate

7.4% Response

Rate

5.3% Response

Rate

How likely is it that you would recommend the Scou3ng program to other families and friends with Scout-‐aged boys? 31.3 28.0 38.1 32.4 36.2 57.5 41.6

ScouBng is constantly reinforcing worthwhile values for my son. 76.7% 76.3% 79.9% 76.9% 76.7% 84.7% 80.0%

My son learns skills in ScouBng that he could not learn anywhere else. 46.5% 51.1% 51.6% 50.7% 48.2% 54.3% 46.7%

I appreciate the opportunity to parBcipate with my son in ScouBng. 88.6% 88.8% 91.2% 89.3% 89.7% 92.6% 89.5%

ScouBng provides acBviBes my son enjoys. 84.5% 86.6% 91.8% 88.7% 85.9% 89.3% 83.3%

I know where to get answers to my quesBons about ScouBng. 70.8% 75.0% 82.2% 80.8% 75.9% 73.0% 67.3%

Cub Scouts is a great value for the money. 73.4% 72.8% 80.7% 76.5% 72.9% 76.4% 72.8%

Scout meeBngs are a good use of my son’s Bme. 67.9% 72.0% 78.1% 76.6% 72.0% 79.3% 71.9%

Na3onal Trending: Cub Scout Parents


BOY SCOUT/VENTURERS Spring 2012

Fall 2012

Spring 2013

Fall 2013

Spring 2014

Fall 2014

Spring 2015

Net Promoter Score Ques3on (in bold) 3,926 Responses

3,806 Responses

9,950 Responses

4,768 Responses

5,221 Responses

7,845 Responses

7,175 Responses


Response Rate

3.3% Response

Rate

7.2% Response

Rate

4.2% Response

Rate

3.7% Response

Rate

5.8% Response

Rate

3.3% Response

Rate

If asked, how likely would you be to recommend Scou3ng to your friends? 33.9 29.8 34.4 17.8 19.7 27.6 23.4

Being in ScouBng makes me feel like I am part of something bigger than myself. 73.5% 71.6% 74.5% 68.5% 67.3% 67.7% 67.7%

Life skills that I have learned in ScouBng are very valuable. 89.2% 88.6% 90.5% 86.1% 87.0% 85.9% 86.4%

I have a lot of respect for my unit’s youth leadership. 73.0% 72.6% 78.6% 73.4% 71.9% 70.7% 73.3%

ScouBng includes acBviBes that I am interested in. 81.9% 81.7% 86.0% 81.3% 77.4% 81.9% 81.6%

Outdoor acBviBes are a key component of our ScouBng program. 85.4% 85.5% 88.5% 85.7% 84.1% 87.5% 88.7%

Our meeBngs are a good use of my Bme. 51.6% 52.6% 57.6% 52.0% 47.0% 47.7% 47.1%

My parents are very supporBve of the ScouBng program. 93.5% 90.9% 92.8% 88.8% 89.9% 94.6% 93.6%

Na3onal Trending: Boy Scouts/Venturers


BOY SCOUT PARENTS Spring 2012

Fall 2012

Spring 2013

Fall 2013

Spring 2014

Fall 2014

Spring 2015


5,167 Responses

13,209 Responses

5,908 Responses

3,412 Responses

9,732 Responses

5,780 Responses


Response Rate

6.5% Response

Rate

14.9% Response

Rate

8% Response

Rate

6.7% Response

Rate

10.1% Response

Rate

7.1% Response

Rate

How likely is it that you would recommend the Scou3ng program to other families and friends with Scout-‐aged boys? 63.2 53.2 61.4 40.3 45.5 61.4 61.4

ScouBng is the best program around to help youth become successful in life. 72.4% 66.7% 71.6% 60.8% 62.9% 72.3% 73.1%

ScouBng reinforces worthwhile values for my son. 92.3% 87.3% 91.6% 80.0% 83.2% 89.5% 89.8%

I appreciate the various opportuniBes to volunteer that are provided in ScouBng. 77.3% 74.1% 85.6% 75.2% 76.6% 83.6% 82.9%

ScouBng gives my son the opportunity to be a leader in his troop. 81.8% 80.0% 89.8% 82.8% 84.3% 87.6% 86.3%

I know where to get answers to most of my quesBons about ScouBng. 70.5% 69.9% 81.8% 71.5% 72.3% 73.7% 73.3%

ScouBng provides the acBviBes my son enjoys. 85.7% 84.9% 90.8% 85.3% 82.3% 85.1% 84.7%

Scout meeBngs are a good use of my son’s Bme. 66.6% 66.2% 79.5% 67.2% 63.4% 66.3% 65.9%

Na3onal Trending: Boy Scout Parents


YOUTH-‐FACING VOLUNTEERS Spring 2012

Fall 2012

Spring 2013

Fall 2013

Spring 2014

Fall 2014

Spring 2015


24,780 Responses

123,680 Responses

47,264 Responses

77,762 Responses

51,262 Responses

47,758 Responses


Response Rate

6.7% Response

Rate

25.4% Response

Rate

16.8% Response

Rate

12.9% Response

Rate

8.6% Response

Rate

7.6% Response

Rate

How likely is it that you would recommend volunteering in the Scou3ng Program to other friends or acquaintances? 43.5 33.5 36.3 22.7 28.6 39.5 36.7

Through ScouBng, I teach youth skills they cannot learn anywhere else. 69.7% 66.0% 69.5% 64.4% 65.5% 68.6% 67.4%

I understand the unique benefits that ScouBng provides to today's youth. 93.8% 91.5% 93.5% 88.4% 90.4% 89.7% 88.6%

I have support from other leaders that helps me be an effecBve Scout leader. 74.8% 72.1% 84.9% 74.5% 75.7% 74.8% 73.0%

Acending roundtables help me become a more effecBve leader. 35.8% 31.6% 41.8% 30.9% 30.6% 30.6% 28.6%

The council staff provides outstanding customer service. 51.6% 48.2% 58.2% 49.0% 49.7% 49.3% 48.6%

I know where to go to get tools and resources to be a successful leader. 70.6% 66.3% 80.0% 68.2% 68.7% 71.5% 69.4%

ScouBng is a great value for the money. 69.6% 75.0% 74.3%

Na3onal Trending: Youth-‐facing Volunteers


COUNCIL/DISTRICT VOLUNTEERS Spring 2012

Fall 2012

Spring 2013

Fall 2013

Spring 2014

Fall 2014

Spring 2015


6,513 Responses

12,533 Responses

7,900 Responses

12,613 Responses

9,590 Responses

12,105 Responses

Driver QuesBons (XX%)

Response Rate

(XX%) Response

Rate

(XX%) Response

Rate

(XX%) Response

Rate

26.6% Response

Rate

23.5% Response

Rate

22.4% Response

Rate

How likely is it that you would recommend volunteering in the Scou3ng Program to other friends or acquaintances? 59.4 55.8 48.3 40.9 51.2 56.1 57.4

I have the tools and resources to be an effecBve volunteer. 70.0% 67.7% 79.5% 68.1% 69.7% 75.6% 74.9%

I feel the council today is very responsive to Scout volunteers’ needs. 52.0% 48.3% 62.1% 49.2% 49.1% 49.6% 49.9%

I get all the informaBon I need to do the work required for my posiBon. 61.9% 59.4% 71.9% 60.4% 60.4% 61.2% 60.4%

My commicee/board is definitely effecBve at accomplishing its goals in a Bmely manner. 58.1% 55.5% 66.9% 55.9% 55.5% 54.9% 55.8%

My skills and capabiliBes are being fully used in my volunteer posiBon. 66.3% 64.9% 71.5% 63.2% 65.9% 65.6% 65.3%

My district/council is doing everything it can to deliver quality programs to our Scouts. 65.3% 61.5% 74.0% 63.0% 65.7% 63.6% 63.5%

I understand the unique benefits that the ScouBng program provides to today’s youth. 96.7% 95.9% 96.7% 92.7% 95.1% 96.1% 95.6%

Na3onal Trending: Council/District Volunteers


CHARTERED ORGANIZATIONS Spring 2012

Fall 2012

Spring 2013

Fall 2013

Spring 2014

Fall 2014

Spring 2015


4,177 Responses

10,069 Responses

3,265 Responses

4,172 Responses

3,563 Responses

3,518 Responses


Response Rate

9.4% Response

Rate

20% Response

Rate

9.2% Response

Rate

8.4% Response

Rate

6.9% Response

Rate

6.6% Response

Rate

How likely is it that you would recommend chartering a Boy Scouts of America unit to other organiza3ons? 52.9 48.1 9.0 24.0 37.5 44.9 49.8

ScouBng has provided a way for my organizaBon to make an impact in the lives of youth. 86.6% 86.4% 90.8% 83.7% 83.8% 87.5% 88.0%

ScouBng is our partner in providing posiBve youth programs to meet the goals of my organizaBon. 79.4% 77.5% 85.7% 70.6% 75.2% 76.6% 76.4%

Our local council has made sponsoring a ScouBng group simple and easy. 67.3% 66.6% 76.6% 67.7% 64.8% 59.8% 59.7%

ScouBng families parBcipate in our organizaBon’s events and/or acBviBes. 57.2% 57.9% 74.3% 58.0% 58.2% 51.8% 50.7%

I am saBsfied with the amount of interacBon between the council and our organizaBon. 52.8% 51.0% 65.3% 52.7% 54.4% 51.1% 50.6%

Our organizaBon sponsors units because ScouBng builds tomorrow’s leaders and ciBzens. 83.9% 84.6% 85.0%

ScouBng is a great value for the money. -‐-‐-‐ 72.4% 73.2%

Na3onal Trending: Chartered Organiza3ons

Documents

Springtime Perspectives on Loyalty · Springtime Perspectives on Loyalty Spring 2015 Survey Cycle Report: Executive Summary, Key Findings and Council Template Worksheets Plus Mid-Year