Hampshire County Scout Council

Transcription

1 2010 Census

2 Hampshire County Scout Council 2010 Annual Census Authorised for publication by Adam Jollans County Commissioner Version 1.1b Published April 2010 Author: Frank Wright, County Support Manager County Office, Ferny Crofts, Brockenhurst, SO42 7YQ Page 2 Version 1.1b

3 Contents Foreword by the County Commissioner Highlights Conduct of the Census County Summary Around the Districts Group progress Section Highlights Beaver Scouts Cub Scouts Scouts Explorer Scouts Network Fellowship Females into Scouting Age analysis Leaders Waiting Lists Diversity Tables Charts Page 3 Version 1.1b

4 Foreword by the County Commissioner Congratulations on another great year of growth for Hampshire Scouting! Because of all your hard work and enthusiasm throughout the year, 726 more young people in Hampshire have been able to enjoy Scouting, supported by 179 more adult leaders. This document, prepared by Frank Wright, presents the detailed data behind these increases, and asks some important questions for the future. Looking forward, let me suggest four overall questions that we, as the leadership team for Hampshire Scouting, should consider and aim to answer: a) What were the factors that led to our growth during 2009? b) What were the challenges that restricted us growing even more during 2009? c) If Hampshire Scouting is going to grow by 10% during 2010, what do we need to do, in Districts, Groups and Sections? d) What support and help should County provide in order to help Districts, Groups and Sections achieve this growth? Numbers of course aren't everything - the quality of our Scouting is important as well. But where young people enjoy quality Scouting, more young people want to join, so numbers are a useful indicator of how we're doing. Good luck during and thank you for 2009! Adam Jollans County Commissioner Hampshire Scouting Page 4 Version 1.1b

5 1 Highlights The membership in the County rose to from in This represents an increase of 905 or 4.85%. This is the sixth consecutive year that numbers have risen and brings us close to the 2000 membership levels. The increase is larger than the 2.82% of last year, and similar to the 5.35% of It is particularly pleasing, as it was felt that numbers could decline following the 2008 increase which was influenced by the Centenary in Districts have recorded increases in membership (18 in 2009) and only 3 recorded reductions (totalling only 23 members lost). The number of Groups remained the same, with one new one (18 th Walhampton and Hordle in New Forest South), balancing the closure of another Group (7 th Alton in Rotherfield). All sections reported increased numbers of units, with Colonies up 7, Packs 3, Troops 4, & Units 7. With the same number of Groups in place the average group membership rose from 67.3 to 70. Beaver numbers rose 189, Cubs 212, Scouts 247, Explorers 72 and Network only members up 6, Network overall 47 up. Overall there has been an increase of 157 female members in the four younger sections an increase of 8% but this only increased the overall female membership by 0.4%. Six Districts recorded reductions. Leaders numbers are up by 194 (8.2%) but there has been a small loss of 16 Others. County numbers are down 8. Despite all the above growth, the waiting list grew 177 to 1825, representing the equivalent of 26 new Groups to clear. Page 5 Version 1.1b

6 2 Conduct of the Census This is my second Census and I am pleased to say it has gone better than last year, with many Districts completing returns within a few days of the end of January. There have been far fewer queries compared to last year and little need to contact Gilwell to resolve problems. A small number of Groups delayed returns for a month and Districts should ensure that plans are in place to support any Group having difficulty in submitting numbers in good time. Once again I must offer my thanks to the District Secretaries and others who have worked so hard to extract information and complete the returns. As in previous years, I have extracted information onto a local spreadsheet to help build the tables and graphs displayed in this report. The structure of the report has remained fundamentally unchanged to ensure we identify trends consistently and are able to report on like-for-like changes. With the new County strategic aim of providing more Scouting to more youngsters in mind, the census provides a wealth of information about our membership. I am sure that members of the County Core Team will be studying the figures carefully over coming months and looking to see how support can be provided to Groups and Districts where numbers are shrinking, as well as learning lessons from those areas who have shown real growth throughout Some key issues around waiting lists remain and a radical approach is going to be needed to provide Scouting to those on the lists, as well as the potential growth which is unrecorded. I have raised an issue with Gilwell over changes made to returns by them after they had been approved by County, thus bypassing the approval process. Frank Wright County Support Manager March 2010 Page 6 Version 1.1b

7 3 County Summary Data County numbers now stand at 19561, following 5 years of growth and place us almost at the year 2000 level. This is well illustrated in Table 1 and Chart 3, which shows numbers since Interpretation & Comment Whilst the numbers are encouraging, we should note that there are 237 Groups in the County and the increase therefore averages 4 per group, less if we exclude the increases in Network and Explorers. County Others are down 8 following last year s rise of 45. County-based Explorer numbers stayed at 11 (with 7 leaders) this year. It is good to note the increase of 194 section leaders with only a small drop of 16 Other Leaders across the County these are mainly section helpers. Membership numbers of all sections have shown increases this year, and there are increases in the number of sections which meet. With no increase in the total of Groups, average sizes are rising. Others includes the County Team (but excluding DCs) as well as Activity Advisers and Assessors who have no other role. A lot of effort was put into defining this group last year. Most Explorers in County-based Units are members of other ESUs and recorded there. This reverses the trend of last year and is encouraging that we are attracting new leaders at the same time as youngstersso crucial if we are to continue to grow Scouting We are containing this growth within the existing Groups this will not be sustainable long term as the membership grows. Explorer Scouts and Network have shown healthy increases. It is encouraging that we are still attracting and retaining the older youth members. Question: Our peak age is 9 - from then on our youth numbers decline. What do we need to do in order to retain more young people through the ages of 10-24? Page 7 Version 1.1b

8 4 Around the Districts Data Interpretation & Comment As mentioned above, 24 Districts recorded increases and 3 recorded losses. The largest numerical gain was in Portsmouth, up by 96 or 9%, followed by Itchen S (66), Basingstoke E (61), NFN (60) & NFS (59). These five districts claimed almost 40% of the total gain. Basingstoke East s increase was 13% - the highest recorded this year. The losses in the three Districts only totalled 23 members, but 5 other Districts only recorded increases in single figures. Fareham West saw the largest increase in the Waiting List, up 75 with the list in New Forest South reducing by 68 and Rotherfield reduced waiting list numbers by 85. The increases do seem to be the result of efforts by Districts where they are proactively trying to accommodate more members. In Portsmouth three Groups accounted for 55 of the increase whilst some other Groups lost numbers, so it is not down to overall growth. It is good that the losses are minimal. In those Districts that lost numbers some Groups actually gained. All three Districts had shown growth in the previous year so this may simply be a temporary set-back. Many Districts are not able to reduce waiting lists due to constraints of leader and helper numbers. Table 1 gives all the details of each District with a comparison with 2009 numbers included. Table 2 shows the totals by District since 1995 with six Districts now being above the 1995 figures. Fareham West is up 51% and Southampton City is 48% above and Odiham (20%) and Andover (12%) are also up. City of Portsmouth, Gosport, Blackwater Valley and New Forest East are all down by about 40% compared to Some of the improvements may be as a result of boundary changes and should be used with caution. District changes generally mirror County numbers, with decline recorded until Question: District growth varied from 13% to -1%. What did Districts to differently - and what can we learn from the Districts who grew more than 5%? Page 8 Version 1.1b

9 5 Group progress Data One new Group was formed during the year in New Forest South but we also lost one Group in Rotherfield incidentally both are based in Schools. The County total remains at Groups reported increased numbers, 19 up on last year. 83 had less members than last year down 22 and 7 Groups had no change. The biggest increase was reported by 4 th Bramshill with 36 additional members, followed by Medstead with 35. Four other Groups increased by more than st West Leigh recorded a 97% increase in numbers, with 5 others over 50%. Strangely, the biggest loss was felt by 6 th Bramshill losing 36 members, with Ropley, in Rotherfield District, losing 56% of its membership. The biggest group remains 3 rd Hayling Island with 245 members, and the smallest Groups are Ropley (13) and Sherbone St John s (13). There are 9 Groups with less than 25 members, four down on last year. Average Group size is 70.7, up 3.4 on last year. 168 Groups now have a GSL or AGSL, up 4 on last year and representing 70.9% of Groups. Interpretation & Comment It is disappointing that overall the number of Groups has not risen, thus limiting out ability to expand. Increases in numbers appear quite random across the County. Only Eastleigh managed gains (albeit modest) in every Group. Overall, the gains for youth members in Groups, (ex Explorers), is double last year at almost 3 new members per Group. District teams will need to look in detail at the gains and losses, not only to understand why some Groups fare better than others close by, but to see how spare capacity in small Groups can be used to reduce waiting lists. It does not seem sensible that a Group with less than 20 exists only minutes away from a Group with more than a hundred. Where small Groups exist, especially in urban areas, a targeted development exercise could utilise the potential for growth. For others closure may be the answer, particularly where they have tiny numbers in each section as 3-4 youngsters in a section will not experience the full benefits of Scouting. Question: Group growth varied even more - from a growth of 36 to a loss of 19. What can we learn from both the Groups who grew and the Groups who didn't? Page 9 Version 1.1b

10 6 Section Highlights Data Overall, the County has gained 27 sections. This is made up of 13 ESUs, 4 Scout Troops, 3 Packs and 7 Colonies. However, these numbers can be further broken down to reveal that there were reductions in some District s Colonies, totalling 4, and gains of 11 in others. 7 new Pack gains were offset by 4 losses. 5 new Troops were indicated as well as the demise of 1. Explorers gained 21 ESU but lost 8. Interpretation & Comment ESU numbers fluctuate as Districts try different models to meet local demand, with some Districts moving from a single District-wide unit to separate Grouplinked units. Sections will come and go as members pass through the system, but the trend is upwards and for some Groups the only way for expansion is to introduce additional Sections. Bramshill made significant gains of 8 sections, Odiham 5 and Romsey 6 all ESU. Rotherfield lost 3 sections and NFE lost 5 ESU. See Table 3 for the District Section totals. Question: Is opening new Sections key to growth. What is the correlation between Groups who opened new sections and Groups who grew most? Page 10 Version 1.1b

11 7 Beaver Scouts Data Beaver numbers have increased by 189 to 3991 after last year s small reduction. Portsmouth reported gains of 40 and NFS, 31. Eight Districts reported losses (15 last year), the largest being in Petersfield, down 19 and Rotherfield, down 18. Both Beaver Leader numbers and Beaver Helper have increased by over 6%. Interpretation & Comment Average Colony size is 16.5, up 0.3. This is a welcome return to growth after the blip of last year. Growth is generally good with losses mirroring other local changes in Districts. It is good to note that we are still increasing the numbers of leaders and helpers to ensure growth continues. Beavers represent 20.4% of membership in the County, the same as last year. See Table 4. Question: With an average Colony size of 16.5 and a maximum size of 24, we have room for growth in existing Colonies. What are the challenges to growing the average size of a Colony to 20 - and how do we solve these challenges? Page 11 Version 1.1b

12 8 Cub Scouts Data The Cub Scout section remains the largest at 5547 and has reported a gain of 212 members, up 3.97% on last year. The Cub Scouts represents 28.3% of membership, down 0.3%. 22 Districts reported increases or static numbers (19 in 2009), the largest being 51 in City of Portsmouth (+18%). 25 in both New Forest East (+24%) and Southampton (+13%) Interpretation & Comment This is still a popular Section reflected in the peak in the age distribution of members in the County. See charts 5 and 7. However, chart 4 indicates an increase in wastage from 9-10 years old which needs further investigation. We must ensure that the transition from Pack to Troop is as smooth and pleasant as possible. Of the losses, the most significant was the loss of 30 (-9%) in Blackwater Valley and 26 in Waterlooville (-12%). The average Pack size is now 20.5, up from 19.9 last year. This varies from 15.2 (12.9 in 2009) in Gosport, to 26.4 in New Forest West, down from 30.8 last year. Table 5 gives full details of the Cub Scout numbers by District. Leader numbers are up 64, but there is a slight reduction of 5 in assistants. Overall the number of leaders remains healthy and gives confidence in our ability to continue to grow. Question: In a similar way, with an average Pack size of 20.5 and a maximum size of 36, we have room for growth in existing Packs. What would we need to do in order to be able to grow the average Pack size to 24? Page 12 Version 1.1b

13 9 Scouts Data Scout numbers are up by 245 (105 in 2009), an increase of 5.5% - double last year s figures. The section represents 24.1% of membership (+0.1%). 19 Districts reported gains this year, three were static and five reported losses. Itchen North was up 30 and four Districts were up more than 20. No significant losses were reported, with the largest recorded in City of Portsmouth who only lost 14 Scouts, against the trend of the District generally. Scout Leader numbers were up 12 or 2% with Assistants increasing by 32 or 15%. The average size of a Troop varied from a lowly 13.4 in Basingstoke East to 25.9 in New Forest South. Interpretation & Comment As with the other sections there seems no pattern to the losses and gains, although the overall trend is very positive. Itchen North has shown healthy gains and stands out from the rest. The slight losses are tolerable and may just be part of the normal ebb and flow of Scouting, but we need to see if we can turn them all into positive gains for next year. Table 6 gives all the detail of gains and losses in the Scout Section, by District. Scout numbers are now just below the 1998 figures, better than the other sections. The increases in Leaders mirror the other sections and indicates healthy growth in the section. Interesting that Basingstoke East had good overall growth this year but a low troop size. Question: Great to see the growth in the Scout section, but we still have problems in retaining Scouts throughout the age range. Which Troops successfully retain their year old Scouts, and what can we learn from them? Page 13 Version 1.1b

14 10 Explorer Scouts Data Explorer Scout numbers are up 72 or 7.3%, slightly down on last year s increase of 111. Explorers now represent 7.34% of the total membership in the County. 15 Districts reported gains, with Waterlooville up 19 and Silchester up Districts reported losses or no change with Havant down 15 and Andover down 12. Overall the losses and gains were less extreme than last year. Waterlooville now have 92, pushing Romsey, with 90, into second place. Fareham West is on 82. Meon Valley reported only 11 Explorers, 5 down on last year, whilst Itchen North had almost trebled their numbers, now Explorers were reported as being involved in the Young Leader Scheme, 13 up on last year (+4%) The number of units rose 4% from 90 to 94 and leaders were up 46 from 190 to 236 (24%). All Districts have ESUs, with Southampton and Portsmouth leading with 7 and Waterlooville having 6. Only 5 Districts are running a single, District wide ESU down from 7 last year. Membership numbers in these single units varies from11(meon Valley), to 38 in Gosport. Interpretation & Comment only emphasises the volatile nature of this section as number fluctuate from year to year. Efforts should be put into those Districts with low numbers as this is a vital group for developing leaders and an age group where Scouting has a lot to offer. It may be appropriate to look at the different ways that units operate in different Districts to see what lessons can be learned. Do Group based Units provide a better programme and hence retention, than large District-wide units, even if these are operated on multiple sites? The Young Leader training scheme has not brought large increases in those involved. However, these numbers may have been affected by the cut back in YL training. Table 7 gives all the detail of the Explorers in the County. Almost 26% of Explorers are girls, down from 30% but still indicates the appeal of the Explorers to a wide range of youngsters and compares with only 10% for Beavers.This is the seventh year in a row that Explorers ave gained numbers and shows the health of this section. The biggest increases were in the age range, a reversal of last year. This Question: Explorer Scouting continues to grow, but we lose a lot of Explorers between 16 and 17. What are the reasons they leave at that age - and what can we do to motivate them to stay? Page 14 Version 1.1b

15 11 Network Data There has been a modest increase in the Network-only members from 93 to 99, but Network members who hold other appointments increased by 41 to 85, bringing the overall total to 184. The joint Itchen South/North Network boasts 23 members, up 11 on last year, with Gosport close behind on Districts reported no active Networks, although some of these have joint units with surrounding Districts which probably accounts for four of these. This year, many of the Network members have been recorded by the County due to uncertainties over responsibility and payments. Interpretation & Comment This may be as a result of better recording rather than a positive increase, but nevertheless does indicate the strength of the Networks in the County. Pro-active work by the County Scout Network Commissioner is continuing to pay obvious dividends. The administration of Networks still needs clarification as there has been inconsistencies in recording during the census which had to be sorted out. Table 8 gives details of County Scout Network numbers broken down by District with comparisons with 2009 figures. Question: Network Scouting also continues to grow, but most Explorer Scouts do not go on to join a Network. Do Explorers have an accurate and positive view of the Network - and how can we improve their perceptions? Page 15 Version 1.1b

16 12 Fellowship Data Members of Fellowships totalled 353 this year compared to 357 last year, a fall of 1% in Fellowship members who also hold other roles and therefore not counted separately in the census are around the 200 mark. Interpretation & Comment The introduction of CRB checks and membership applications may have led to reductions in some areas. The introduction of Active Support will hopefully reverse the losses and lead to growth in future years. Fareham East and Itchen South both recorded 34 along with City of Portsmouth. Havant reported a drop of 24 from 36 to 12. Nine Districts reported increased numbers over the year. Seven Districts indicated they had no Fellowships active at the moment, an increase of 2 on last year s census. This included Eastleigh that had 10 members last year. Table 9 gives full details of the returns from Districts Question: Fellowship numbers have been stable, but there's a big transition this year from Fellowship to Scout Active Support Units - is this encouraging more people to join, or will we lose members? Page 16 Version 1.1b

17 13 Females into Scouting Data The total number of female members under 18, in Hampshire, rose to 2134 from 1977 last year, an increase of 157 or 8%. This led to percentage of females across the County rising slightly to 13.6%. The percentages of girls in the sections were: Beavers 10.0% (-0.3%), Cubs 11.4% (+1.7%), Scouts 15.4% (+0.3%) and Explorers 26.1% (- 2.3%). Females now account for 13.2% of the Hampshire youth membership, up from 12.2% last year. This varies from 28.1% in Andover to a lowly 3.7% in Itchen North and 5.5% in Waterlooville and 5.7% in Chandlers Ford. 35 Groups still had no girls in any of their sections (down2), 14 had only 1 and 34 only 2 or 3 girls. 101 Groups had less than 5 girls, down 10 on last year, but still 42% of the total. Interpretation & Comment The change was above the average of 4.85% across the County and indicates further gains. We are not increasing our membership numbers in the Beavers, but here there is strong competition from Rainbows and later, Brownies. The slight loss in Explorers may just be noise level, but needs watching for any long term trends. There is a steady reduction in the number of Groups with no girls, but there are Districts with very low numbers even after all these years. Table 10 gives the numbers by District. Chart 11 shows the percentages of girls in each section since 2002 and Chart 12 the split between boys and girls by age. 21 Districts reported increases, with Andover up 27, Winchester and Basingstoke East up 19. Itchen South reversed last year s gains loosing 32, almost a quarter of their numbers. Network female members rose from 33 to 35, up 3%. The number of female adults in the County is rose to 1440 from 1363, now 42.69% of the total 3382 adults. Question: The growth in girls in Scouting seems to be stalling, with Beavers and Explorers showing a percentage decrease. What do we need to do in order to encourage more girls to join and stay in Scouting? Page 17 Version 1.1b

18 14 Age analysis Data The peak age for membership is nine years old with 2306 members or 12.9%. This may be as a result of last year s peak working through. With seven and eight year olds, this age range accounts for 37% of youth membership. After the peak there is a steady decline in numbers, year on year, with only 1% of youth members being 17 years old. If we compare the age spread for girls and boys the peak occurs at the same time for both. However, the relative losses for boys and girls is markedly different, the losses in girls occurring far more slowly. By age 14 male youth membership numbers are only one quarter of those at age nine. In comparison, female membership numbers at age 14 are only half of those at age nine. Interpretation & Comment The peak in 2009 was at age eight, but the differences are insignificant and the pattern of loss is similar to Whilst the decline is steady it is nevertheless a strong indicator that we are still failing to hold onto our youngsters. Although we talk at lot of the need to recruit, we should not forget the need to retain those who have taken steps to join in the first place. The slow losses in female members probably reflects the fact that girls join because they really want to rather than because of family tradition. Chart 4 shows the wastage at each age compared to last year but should be viewed with Chart 5 which shows the age profile of members. Table 11 gives the data for the age distribution. Chart 13 shows the percentages of the whole population who are members based on 2004 School census figures. Question: Market share by Section is a key measure for us - and the drop in share between Scouts and Explorers is especially large. Would connecting Explorer Units more strongly to Scout Groups improve our linkage and retention between these two Sections? Page 18 Version 1.1b

19 15 Leaders Data A total of 3656 Leaders were recorded in the County, a gain of 178 over 2009, or 5%. This is a big improvement over the 1.8% gain last year. Interpretation & Comment Leaders figures include section assistants, GSLs and others. Others include AGSLs as well as helpers and associate members. Itchen South led the way with an increase of 29, Fareham West grew 23 and Meon Valley 20. The biggest lost was New Forest West, down 10, whilst Petersfield lost 8. There was a healthy increase in Cub Scout Leaders, up 59 and Explorer Leaders up 51 across the County. Beaver Section Leaders and Assistants rose 40 and Scouts showing up 44 Leaders. It is good to see the overall gains in Leaders, which are so vital in enabling us to offer more Scouting to more children, and continue to grow the movement. The numbers of Leaders and Assistants remains healthy and there does not appear to have been the losses after the centenary celebrations as had been predicted. Although the increase is small it is nevertheless encouraging. Table 12 shows the data for Leaders by District. Question: We've had encouraging growth in Leaders this year. Where do new Leaders come from - parents, Explorers, others - and what do we know about why they join and why they stay? Page 19 Version 1.1b

20 16 Waiting Lists Data Overall the waiting list total rose by 177 or 10.7%, slightly down on last year s increase. There are now 1825 youngster of age waiting to join the movement. Rotherfield reduced their list by 85 and New Forest South shed another 68 from their 2009 numbers, partly as a result of validation of the waiting lists. Despite operating a central waiting list, Fareham West fared worst with their waiting list growing by 75 and Winchester s by 58. Fareham West and Odiham have waiting lists which equal 1/4 th of their current membership. This is an improvement on last year due to their gains in overall membership. If all those on the waiting list were to be found places we would grow the movement by over an additional 9%. Interpretation & Comment Fareham West operates a central waiting list and now Winchester manage enquiries centrally, but waiting lists are still growing beyond our ability to provide places. Several Districts are looking at alternative ways of delivering Scouting in their areas, in order to provide more opportunities. Table 13 gives waiting list data by District and County totals. Looking at Map 1 which shows waiting list by District in a graphical form, there appears to be no pattern to the size of the lists. However, if we compare this with Map 2 which shows the increases since last year we can see that the larger waiting lists and increases occur along the M27/M3 corridor through Hampshire and up to the Surrey border which would correlate with increased settlement along these axis. Question: Waiting lists continue to increase, and vary greatly between Districts. Do we need to consider opening new Groups or satellite Sections in areas with high waiting lists? Page 20 Version 1.1b

21 17 Diversity Data This is the second year that we have looked at the results of the questions on Ethnic origins and disabilities within our membership. Table 14 gives the totals recorded by District. Overall 375 members were recorded as non-white, down 21. This represents only 1.91% of the overall membership. However, as with last year, some groups reported whole sections as mixed or other which could indicate that this information was not available or unreliable. Removing these figures reduces the numbers to 307 or only 1.6%, which is at the same level as last year. 222 members were recorded as having long term sickness or disability up 8 on last year. This was made up of 152 youth members and 70 adults. This is 1.1% of membership, down 0.3% on last year. Interpretation & Comment The highest number (60) was reported in Fareham West but this could be in error by 10. Southampton recorded 51 across all categories and sections, with a possible correction of 8, Portsmouth s figures being 53 and 20. There seems to have been a better attempt to record accurately this year compared with last, with fewer suspect entries. We do not have the background data to be able to compare our profile with the overall population in Hampshire and thus give a true measure of how inclusive we are. This could be a useful exercise in identifying areas for growth. Question: Scouting should be open to all, regardless of background. How do our diversity numbers compare with the Hampshire population as a whole - and what can we do to encourage greater diversity in Scouting? Page 21 Version 1.1b

22 Tables 1 District Summary & County Totals 2 16 Years of District Numbers 3 Section Totals by District 4 District Beaver Scout Numbers 5 District Cub Scout Numbers 6 District Scout Numbers 7 District Explorer Scout Numbers 8 County Scout Network Numbers 9 Fellowships in Hampshire 10 Girls in membership 11 - Age distribution 12 Leaders Numbers 13 Waiting Lists 14 Diversity Charts 1 Numbers in sections since Section Figure Comparisons 2008 and County Totals Since Wastage by year Age distribution for Beaver numbers since Cub numbers since Scout numbers since Explorer Scouts since Network members since Percentage of girls in sections since Age split Boys & Girls 13 Percentage of child population Page 22 Version 1.1b

23

24 Page 24 Version 1.1b

25 Page 25 Version 1.1b

26 Page 26 Version 1.1b

27 Page 27 Version 1.1b

28 Page 28 Version 1.1b

29 Page 29 Version 1.1b

30 Page 30 Version 1.1b

31 Table 9 - Fellowship Page 31 Version 1.1b

32 Table 10 - Girls Page 32 Version 1.1b

33 Page 33 Version 1.1b

34 Table 12 - Leaders Page 34 Version 1.1b

35 Page 35 Version 1.1b

36 Page 36 Version 1.1b

37 Group Totals Group Difference % chang e 1st Andover nd Andover rd Andover th Andover th Andover th Andover th Andover th Andover th Andover nd Andover rd Andover GJ st Whitchurch Andover Basingstoke Sea Scts 1st Chineham Basingstoke Air Old Basing st Popley st Basingstoke th Basingstoke th Basingstoke Basingstoke East 4th Basingstoke th Basingstoke Brighton Hill Kempshott Hatch Warren Oakley Page 37 Version 1.1b

38 Overton Sherborne St. John Worting St. Thomas Basingstoke West 1st Aldershot nd Aldershot th Aldershot th Aldershot th Aldershot st Ash Vale nd Farnborough rd Farnborough th Farnborough th Farnborough th Farnborough th Farnborough th Farnborough th Farnborough st Cove nd Cove Blackwater Valley 1st Bramshill rd Bramshill th Bramshill th Bramshill th Bramshill th Bramshill th Bramshill Bramshill 1st Chandlers Ford nd Chandlers Ford rd Chandlers Ford Page 38 Version 1.1b

39 4th Chandlers Ford th Chandlers Ford Chandlers Ford 1st Portsmouth th Portsmouth th Portsmouth st Portsmouth nd Portsmouth rd Portsmouth th Portsmouth th Portsmouth rd Portsmouth th Portsmouth th Portsmouth rd Portsmouth th Portsmouth st Portsmouth nd Portsmouth th Portsmouth th Portsmouth th Portsmouth nd Portsmouth rd Portsmouth City of Portsmouth 1st Eastleigh th Eastleigh th Eastleigh th Eastleigh th Eastleigh th Eastleigh th Eastleigh Eastleigh Page 39 Version 1.1b

40 1st Fareham nd Fareham th Fareham th Fareham th Fareham st Catisfield nd Portchester rd Portchester Fareham East 1st Locks Heath nd Locksheath st Sarisbury st Stubbington nd Stubbington st Titchfield st Warsash st Whiteley st Park Gate Fareham West 1st Gosport nd Gosport rd Gosport th Gosport th Gosport th Gosport th Gosport th Gosport th Gosport st Lee-on-Solent th Gosport Gosport 1st Bedhampton Page 40 Version 1.1b

41 1st Emsworth st Homewell rd Havant rd Hayling rd Leigh Park st Rowlands Castle st West Leigh Havant 3rd Bitterne th Bitterne th West End th Hedge End th Thornhill rd Kanes Hill th Grange Park th Townhill Park th Broad Oak st Amazon Itchen North 1st Itchen South th Itchen South th Itchen South th Itchen South th Itchen South th Itchen South th Itchen South th Itchen South nd Itchen South Itchen South 1st Bishops Waltham 1st Curdridge & Page 41 Version 1.1b

42 Botley 1st Droxford (Dormant) 1st Shedfield st Swanmore st Wickham Meon Valley 3rd Dibden Purlieu th Hythe th Marchwood th Blackfield th Holbury th Applemore New Forest East 1st New Forest North 2nd New Forest North 3rd New Forest North 4th New Forest North 5th New Forest North 6th New Forest North 7th NFN Closed New Forest North 1st Lymington st Milton th Sway th Brockenhurst Page 42 Version 1.1b

43 9th Lymington th Milford & Keyhaven 16th Barton th Hordle th Walhampton & Hordle New Forest South 1st Poulner st Fordingbridge rd Ringwood st Sandleheath st Forres Sandle st Burley New Forest West 1st Crookham nd Odiham nd Odiham th Odiham th Odiham th Odiham th Fleet th Elvetham Heath Odiham 1st Liphook st Liss st Sheet st Petersfield East Hants Villages Petersfield Page 43 Version 1.1b

44 1st Romsey rd Romsey th Romsey th Romsey th Romsey th Romsey th Romsey th Romsey st Romsey st Romsey(Closed) Romsey Alresford & Cheriton st Bordon st Headley rd Alton Four Marks th Alton (Closed) th Alton Ropley st Blackmoor & Wh nd Bentley st Medstead Rotherfield Baughurst Pamber Heath Tadley st Kingsclere Bramley Headley Silchester 7th Bassett Page 44 Version 1.1b

45 14th Highfield th Northam th Swaythling th Immaculata st Southampton nd Southampton th Southampton th Southampton th Southampton nd Southampton Southampton City 1st Catherington st Clanfield st Cowplain st Denmead st Horndean st Purbrook nd Waterlooville st Hartsplain Hambledon Village Waterlooville 1st Winchester rd Winchester th Winchester th Winchester th Winchester th Winchester th Winchester th Winchester Winchester Totals Averag es Page 45 Version 1.1b

46 Page 46 Version 1.1b

47 Page 47 Version 1.1b

48 Page 48 Version 1.1b

49 Page 49 Version 1.1b

50 Page 50 Version 1.1b

51 Page 51 Version 1.1b

52 Page 52 Version 1.1b

53 Page 53 Version 1.1b

54 Page 54 Version 1.1b

55 Page 55 Version 1.1b

56 Page 56 Version 1.1b

57 Page 57 Version 1.1b

58 Page 58 Version 1.1b

59 Map 1 - Geographical view of waiting lists (Please note that District boundaries are approximations based on post-code sectors not agreed District boundaries. The data demonstrated is District based linked to the geographical centre of each District) Page 59 Version 1.1b

60 Map 2 Geographical view of increases in waiting lists. Page 60 Version 1.1b