Hampshire County Scout Council

2010 Census

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

Contents Foreword by the County Commissioner... 4 1 Highlights... 5 2 Conduct of the Census... 6 3 County Summary... 7 4 Around the Districts... 8 5 Group progress... 9 6 Section Highlights... 10 7 Beaver Scouts... 11 8 Cub Scouts... 12 9 Scouts... 13 10 Explorer Scouts... 14 11 Network... 15 12 Fellowship... 16 13 Females into Scouting... 17 14 Age analysis... 18 15 Leaders... 19 16 Waiting Lists... 20 17 Diversity... 21 Tables... 22 Charts... 22 Page 3 Version 1.1b

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 2010 - and thank you for 2009! Adam Jollans County Commissioner Hampshire Scouting Page 4 Version 1.1b

1 Highlights The membership in the County rose to 19561 from 18656 in 2009. 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 2007. It is particularly pleasing, as it was felt that numbers could decline following the 2008 increase which was influenced by the Centenary in 2007. 24 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

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 2009. 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

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 1995. 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

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 1995. 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 2004-2005. 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

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 237. 147 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 30. 1 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

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

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

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

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 12-13 year old Scouts, and what can we learn from them? Page 13 Version 1.1b

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 13. 12 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 14. 324 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 16-17 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

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 18. 17 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

12 Fellowship Data Members of Fellowships totalled 353 this year compared to 357 last year, a fall of 1% in 2008. 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

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

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 2009. 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

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

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

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

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 1995 2 Section Figure Comparisons 2008 and 2009 3 County Totals Since 1995 4 Wastage by year 2009 2008 5 Age distribution for 2009 6 - Beaver numbers since 1995 7 Cub numbers since 1995 8 Scout numbers since 1995 9 Explorer Scouts since 2003 10 Network members since 2004 11 - Percentage of girls in sections since 2002 12 Age split Boys & Girls 13 Percentage of child population Page 22 Version 1.1b

Page 24 Version 1.1b

Page 25 Version 1.1b

Page 26 Version 1.1b

Page 27 Version 1.1b

Page 28 Version 1.1b

Page 29 Version 1.1b

Page 30 Version 1.1b

Table 9 - Fellowship Page 31 Version 1.1b

Table 10 - Girls Page 32 Version 1.1b

Page 33 Version 1.1b

Table 12 - Leaders Page 34 Version 1.1b

Page 35 Version 1.1b

Page 36 Version 1.1b

Group Totals 2002-2010 Group 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Difference % chang e 1st Andover 62 57 57 58 62 58 79 66 62-4 -5.1 2nd Andover 52 53 64 55 56 50 56 48 40-8 -14.3 3rd Andover 39 35 36 43 51 34 36 42 57 15 41.7 4th Andover 65 55 55 73 66 69 66 66 47-19 -28.8 9th Andover 100 87 79 88 89 82 91 80 80 0 0.0 10th Andover 35 41 55 51 40 55 64 28 41 13 20.3 12th Andover 58 76 77 85 90 93 85 88 92 4 4.7 14th Andover 8 12 23 22 28 33 32 43 61 18 56.3 19th Andover 16 18 17-1 -6.3 22nd Andover 71 48 44 47 61 49 40 43 38-5 -12.5 23rd Andover GJ 7 27 44 60 55 50 58 52-6 -12.0 1st Whitchurch 98 78 89 92 98 101 100 111 117 6 6.0 Andover Basingstoke Sea 38 39 39 28 29 31 22 25 34 9 40.9 Scts 1st Chineham 127 105 94 103 108 121 128 129 135 6 4.7 Basingstoke Air 44 32 49 44 55 54 50 44 54 10 20.0 Old Basing 68 56 63 62 62 69 53 57 58 1 1.9 1st Popley 36 25 19 16 25 29 16 26 27 1 6.3 1st Basingstoke 40 48 50 44 54 63 55 58 57-1 -1.8 8th Basingstoke 35 25 25 24 23 19 34 31 45 14 41.2 11th Basingstoke 41 40 29 20 32 36 47 52 69 17 36.2 Basingstoke East 4th Basingstoke 41 37 40 43 50 67 56 51 51 0 0.0 24th Basingstoke 44 31 29 28 36 45 37 49 38-11 -29.7 Brighton Hill 70 71 65 57 56 53 57 62 82 20 35.1 Kempshott 60 40 55 65 63 73 72 69 65-4 -5.6 Hatch Warren 101 109 100 67 71 69 80 64 72 8 10.0 Oakley 100 76 77 80 73 76 77 83 85 2 2.6 Page 37 Version 1.1b

Overton 40 47 41 47 47 63 67 68 59-9 -13.4 Sherborne St. John 21 16 17 13 10 10 13 16 13-3 -23.1 Worting St. Thomas 57 56 64 52 60 60 71 74 81 7 9.9 Basingstoke West 1st Aldershot 53 50 47 65 65 65 61 53 56 3 4.9 2nd Aldershot 17 29 29 47 52 66 71 67 69 2 2.8 4th Aldershot 44 20 33 36 41 30 33 38 35-3 -9.1 8th Aldershot 45 66 70 74 80 48 92 86 79-7 -7.6 14th Aldershot 33 22 57 41 31 35 31 38 42 4 12.9 1st Ash Vale 118 91 88 97 84 88 87 92 78-14 -16.1 2nd Farnborough 55 48 49 51 50 46 35 44 48 4 11.4 3rd Farnborough 16 4 7 14 10 12 12 18 16-2 -16.7 5th Farnborough 90 65 63 57 62 60 84 75 107 32 38.1 6th Farnborough 51 51 51 50 44 43 41 39 43 4 9.8 7th Farnborough 57 68 75 66 76 82 74 79 61-18 -24.3 8th Farnborough 45 36 43 34 41 89 58 53 52-1 -1.7 9th Farnborough 59 69 67 63 60 51 55 50 50 0 0.0 10th Farnborough 51 43 51 53 58 61 60 67 70 3 5.0 1st Cove 80 73 78 90 82 82 92 96 84-12 -13.0 2nd Cove 77 80 77 69 64 60 63 78 76-2 -3.2 Blackwater Valley 1st Bramshill 22 23 29 28 27 28 20 23 29 6 30.0 3rd Bramshill 63 61 78 90 90 56 68 92 88-4 -5.9 4th Bramshill 100 88 80 84 92 92 99 116 152 36 36.4 6th Bramshill 26 37 37 50 60 65 72 73 47-26 -36.1 7th Bramshill 112 106 92 71 81 86 86 80 98 18 20.9 8th Bramshill 183 152 137 131 113 94 112 109 112 3 2.7 9th Bramshill 107 83 68 68 65 70 65 70 63-7 -10.8 Bramshill 1st Chandlers Ford 75 71 100 82 104 106 108 135 125-10 -9.3 2nd Chandlers Ford 103 90 97 87 65 57 66 59 64 5 7.6 3rd Chandlers Ford 116 119 114 123 119 123 132 133 140 7 5.3 Page 38 Version 1.1b

4th Chandlers Ford 163 135 133 124 125 132 149 146 149 3 2.0 15th Chandlers Ford 55 40 46 52 46 51 58 63 60-3 -5.2 Chandlers Ford 1st Portsmouth 40 38 31 34 31 33 32 35 30-5 -15.6 5th Portsmouth 34 29 32 34 33 30 22 30 41 11 50.0 8th Portsmouth 56 62 65 59 72 67 67 64 61-3 -4.5 21st Portsmouth 52 31 43 29 42 31 27 41 60 19 70.4 22nd Portsmouth 29 20 28 31 31 36 30 36 36 0 0.0 23rd Portsmouth 59 59 63 57 52 59 58 57 45-12 -20.7 24th Portsmouth 49 52 46 35 25 35 33 27 25-2 -6.1 28th Portsmouth 97 67 71 63 57 47 43 39 45 6 14.0 43rd Portsmouth 73 36 37 30 37 53 51 45 49 4 7.8 44th Portsmouth 43 38 46 35 25 29 35 27 45 18 51.4 48th Portsmouth 38 39 38 38 20 19 13 14 21 7 53.8 53rd Portsmouth 20 5 0 0 28 50 72 48 50 2 2.8 54th Portsmouth 63 40 37 54 62 42 47 63 58-5 -10.6 61st Portsmouth 52 51 49 50 48 60 49 57 54-3 -6.1 62nd Portsmouth 48 44 40 32 34 18 27 45 57 12 44.4 64th Portsmouth 50 46 42 52 37 33 28 54 68 14 50.0 68th Portsmouth 36 31 38 42 52 43 32 43 34-9 -28.1 70th Portsmouth 63 76 49 50 59 80 71 48 59 11 15.5 72nd Portsmouth 49 56 54 51 42 62 63 66 84 18 28.6 73rd Portsmouth 88 75 73 87 100 103 92 81 84 3 3.3 City of Portsmouth 1st Eastleigh 49 53 50 66 66 65 62 58 59 1 1.6 4th Eastleigh 39 42 41 32 29 36 39 44 58 14 35.9 7th Eastleigh 42 50 50 55 44 46 51 58 60 2 3.9 8th Eastleigh 137 137 135 121 128 130 130 133 148 15 11.5 12th Eastleigh 63 73 77 68 68 74 75 71 75 4 5.3 13th Eastleigh 46 35 34 42 49 53 61 78 86 8 13.1 14th Eastleigh 96 73 74 69 62 68 73 56 64 8 11.0 Eastleigh Page 39 Version 1.1b

1st Fareham 57 57 54 64 59 59 58 63 57-6 -10.3 2nd Fareham 28 52 51 60 63 61 77 84 76-8 -10.4 10th Fareham 128 104 101 94 80 80 74 66 81 15 20.3 15th Fareham 125 106 82 85 90 82 83 76 70-6 -7.2 17th Fareham 77 80 78 55 42 61 66 67 71 4 6.1 1st Catisfield 84 72 54 74 85 106 125 119 125 6 4.8 2nd Portchester 48 52 43 38 48 59 29 23 24 1 3.4 3rd Portchester 176 149 151 131 129 99 133 133 141 8 6.0 Fareham East 1st Locks Heath 85 73 85 83 81 80 92 125 113-12 -13.0 2nd Locksheath 82 60 63 63 55 50 50 45 50 5 10.0 1st Sarisbury 84 82 63 60 49 35 47 59 77 18 38.3 1st Stubbington 89 91 94 78 94 98 106 95 96 1 0.9 2nd Stubbington 103 100 95 104 107 101 106 100 102 2 1.9 1st Titchfield 55 34 22 29 22 34 74 68 79 11 14.9 1st Warsash 147 146 156 153 160 167 169 195 201 6 3.6 1st Whiteley 61 85 55 35 40 49 34 58 24 49.0 1st Park Gate 43 55 68 91 103 109 105 113 112-1 -1.0 Fareham West 1st Gosport 47 43 38 44 42 30 35 30 42 12 34.3 2nd Gosport 49 38 29 31 31 37 31 28 25-3 -9.7 3rd Gosport 63 62 58 65 63 61 60 59 53-6 -10.0 5th Gosport 68 66 70 69 75 80 99 103 98-5 -5.1 6th Gosport 34 25 26 21 28 29 41 40 42 2 4.9 7th Gosport 45 47 44 55 58 68 67 65 67 2 3.0 9th Gosport 37 39 31 30 26 32 40 39 36-3 -7.5 12th Gosport 69 66 67 64 60 56 60 47 45-2 -3.3 16th Gosport 25 31 28 37 28 34 39 31 35 4 10.3 1st Lee-on-Solent 70 40 28 25 42 49 49 56 64 8 16.3 27th Gosport 17 9 3 4 8 10 9 11 17 6 66.7 Gosport 1st Bedhampton 101 86 84 74 88 67 91 78 87 9 9.9 Page 40 Version 1.1b

1st Emsworth 111 110 108 108 115 110 137 134 138 4 2.9 1st Homewell 67 62 75 59 66 63 57 50-7 -11.1 3rd Havant 46 46 48 39 28 28 28 27 18-9 -32.1 3rd Hayling 191 160 152 149 162 154 193 212 245 33 17.1 3rd Leigh Park 11 40 38 34 46 52 60 51 60 9 15.0 1st Rowlands Castle 29 37 40 38 40 38 39 27 33 6 15.4 1st West Leigh 55 47 50 45 37 37 31 29 57 28 90.3 Havant 3rd Bitterne 97 91 94 81 91 90 87 88 97 9 10.3 8th Bitterne 58 49 57 49 42 43 49 60 64 4 8.2 10th West End 72 69 61 40 50 55 50 42 62 20 40.0 13th Hedge End 203 179 172 137 148 154 133 158 175 17 12.8 19th Thornhill 45 44 24 38 31 15 18 23 36 13 72.2 23rd Kanes Hill 58 54 55 56 52 44 48 44 33-11 -22.9 25th Grange Park 92 81 66 68 76 88 87 89 93 4 4.6 28th Townhill Park 62 54 51 52 20 55 75 63 55-8 -10.7 29th Broad Oak 26 32 29 21 39 50 57 73 64-9 -15.8 31st Amazon 78 74 63 65 66 57 53 72 57-15 -28.3 Itchen North 1st Itchen South 34 33 19 25 45 46 52 72 68-4 -7.7 4th Itchen South 67 59 70 56 70 77 59 49 38-11 -18.6 6th Itchen South 118 112 78 70 83 107 100 77 108 31 31.0 7th Itchen South 44 36 42 43 48 44 53 65 65 0 0.0 9th Itchen South 99 65 68 79 72 81 76 73 76 3 3.9 11th Itchen South 47 30 8 17 12 19 21 29 32 3 14.3 14th Itchen South 100 67 49 62 76 83 92 85 80-5 -5.4 17th Itchen South 58 46 33 33 35 29 34 32 40 8 23.5 32nd Itchen South 69 53 59 66 34 36 48 49 69 20 41.7 Itchen South 1st Bishops 85 95 89 69 81 81 94 125 135 10 10.6 Waltham 1st Curdridge & 11 3 11 8 16 13 12 21 22 1 8.3 Page 41 Version 1.1b

Botley 1st Droxford 24 11 17 10 9 11 0 0 0 0 (Dormant) 1st Shedfield 65 62 60 74 76 90 99 106 138 32 32.3 1st Swanmore 79 86 80 81 67 45 54 46 41-5 -9.3 1st Wickham 63 63 58 49 44 45 53 51 55 4 7.5 Meon Valley 3rd Dibden Purlieu 110 104 106 100 129 99 102 96 103 7 6.9 4th Hythe 94 90 66 81 76 53 73 62 60-2 -2.7 5th Marchwood 68 82 54 53 57 63 55 70 74 4 7.3 6th Blackfield 51 33 51 42 63 71 80 67 71 4 5.0 12th Holbury 49 67 52 57 43 57 38 42 53 11 28.9 14th Applemore 38 34 32 30 31 28 53 56 69 13 24.5 New Forest East 1st New Forest 80 82 78 75 80 90 73 72 72 0 0.0 North 2nd New Forest 123 102 83 83 90 107 102 104 118 14 13.7 North 3rd New Forest 71 76 70 65 65 44 66 70 83 13 19.7 North 4th New Forest 89 68 78 73 73 91 97 111 116 5 5.2 North 5th New Forest 100 74 86 74 79 66 70 76 70-6 -8.6 North 6th New Forest 75 74 82 75 65 72 64 69 85 16 25.0 North 7th NFN Closed 48 39 35 36 32 38 0 0 0 0 New Forest North 1st Lymington 68 68 68 75 74 70 78 75 80 5 6.4 1st Milton 25 25 49 56 59 60 91 80 91 11 12.1 4th Sway 26 26 31 29 32 39 35 29 35 6 17.1 8th Brockenhurst 22 22 40 36 36 26 31 37 28-9 -29.0 Page 42 Version 1.1b

9th Lymington 143 143 146 139 145 144 134 135 152 17 12.7 15th Milford & 26 26 56 70 72 68 91 72 75 3 3.3 Keyhaven 16th Barton 90 90 110 109 102 117 108 110 103-7 -6.5 17th Hordle 46 46 41 55 52 49 49 48 53 5 10.2 18th Walhampton & Hordle 0 33 33 New Forest South 1st Poulner 121 123 126 131 135 140 134 142 147 5 3.7 1st Fordingbridge 50 54 57 70 75 69 75 59 60 1 1.3 3rd Ringwood 57 48 60 62 72 69 66 76 75-1 -1.5 1st Sandleheath 91 91 94 101 95 86 84 87 83-4 -4.8 1st Forres Sandle 23 31 35 36 36 36 33 42 51 9 27.3 1st Burley 46 52 57 54 57 66 56 54 62 8 14.3 New Forest West 1st Crookham 168 138 130 152 138 152 149 136 149 13 8.7 2nd Odiham 53 52 70 62 63 60 80 69 64-5 -6.3 22nd Odiham 48 76 88 81 78 79 77 81 75-6 -7.8 26th Odiham 54 42 35 44 39 39 46 62 71 9 19.6 28th Odiham 38 47 43 40 61 61 68 94 94 0 0.0 29th Odiham 104 100 96 96 69 97 97 112 116 4 4.1 6th Fleet 97 93 72 61 62 74 80 76 94 18 22.5 100th Elvetham 35 56 79 23 65.7 Heath Odiham 1st Liphook 221 199 195 185 200 182 176 179 172-7 -4.0 1st Liss 60 45 40 47 46 49 70 66 61-5 -7.1 1st Sheet 117 71 126 104 92 114 114 116 113-3 -2.6 1st Petersfield 81 74 79 82 83 109 104 112 105-7 -6.7 East Hants Villages 86 117 63 59 72 45 82 87 97 10 12.2 Petersfield Page 43 Version 1.1b

1st Romsey 42 60 49 46 47 61 53 50 53 3 5.7 3rd Romsey 39 15 12 18 22 25 19 24 28 4 21.1 4th Romsey 35 44 34 23 23 35 50 59 66 7 14.0 6th Romsey 56 52 54 58 29 49 59 64 73 9 15.3 9th Romsey 57 79 79 86 90 85 77 85 90 5 6.5 10th Romsey 198 172 165 162 167 171 180 182 187 5 2.8 11th Romsey 51 86 80 66 58 59 71 66 63-3 -4.2 15th Romsey 83 55 68 61 63 82 89 82 72-10 -11.2 21st Romsey 103 87 77 74 68 71 75 73 81 8 10.7 31st 18 15 16 26 9 16 0 0 0 0 Romsey(Closed) Romsey Alresford & Cheriton 46 54 47 68 80 12 25.5 1st Bordon 68 59 54 48 49 40 57 38 37-1 -1.8 1st Headley 58 29 13 26 47 58 67 54 56 2 3.0 3rd Alton 84 75 74 73 62 78 79 77 74-3 -3.8 Four Marks 108 101 89 92 95 100 118 118 118 0 0.0 7th Alton (Closed) 8 10 14 17 17 13 16 13 0-13 -81.3 8th Alton 150 131 145 157 138 152 157 162 147-15 -9.6 Ropley 51 60 62 59 42 56 42 30 13-17 -40.5 1st Blackmoor & Wh 41 42 46 53 58 49 41 35 39 4 9.8 2nd Bentley 87 83 71 69 82 78 83 88 102 14 16.9 1st Medstead 33 36 32 34 44 48 62 68 103 35 56.5 Rotherfield Baughurst 46 36 43 47 59 47 56 47 60 13 23.2 Pamber Heath 62 68 70 60 47 52 52 45 57 12 23.1 Tadley 74 84 69 102 85 106 108 95 82-13 -12.0 1st Kingsclere 25 22 17 27 32 34 54 40 37-3 -5.6 Bramley 67 54 57 56 46 67 54 67 58-9 -16.7 Headley 34 33 29 23 16 23 26 22 32 10 38.5 Silchester 7th Bassett 38 46 41 38 43 34 34 55 66 11 32.4 Page 44 Version 1.1b

14th Highfield 47 44 58 67 61 68 70 78 81 3 4.3 25th Northam 56 34 44 48 27 24 53 53 42-11 -20.8 26th Swaythling 46 49 15 16 23 40 33 19 26 7 21.2 29th Immaculata 24 20 22 29 57 45 41 48 44-4 -9.8 1st Southampton 105 88 73 68 55 63 64 77 67-10 -15.6 2nd Southampton 51 52 53 47 57 58 65 64 71 7 10.8 9th Southampton 28 36 35 24 32 58 58 54 60 6 10.3 11th Southampton 51 60 57 47 50 50 49 55 59 4 8.2 13th Southampton 58 51 46 59 55 57 50 48 59 11 22.0 22nd Southampton 56 64 56 66 60 68 72 70 75 5 6.9 Southampton City 1st Catherington 76 84 79 100 76 65 65 72 64-8 -12.3 1st Clanfield 78 64 83 46 53 51 61 62 67 5 8.2 1st Cowplain 73 52 41 46 60 65 67 71 66-5 -7.5 1st Denmead 175 156 138 121 124 132 146 138 129-9 -6.2 1st Horndean 65 65 45 45 47 46 46 50 56 6 13.0 1st Purbrook 109 77 66 73 64 58 65 64 67 3 4.6 2nd Waterlooville 165 148 122 100 101 98 100 88 77-11 -11.0 1st Hartsplain 70 69 70 64 70 67 66 75 87 12 18.2 Hambledon Village 53 62 74 72 71 71 66 74 66-8 -12.1 Waterlooville 1st Winchester 99 97 107 125 131 137 149 153 160 7 4.7 3rd Winchester 71 54 72 49 55 48 64 78 76-2 -3.1 5th Winchester 54 26 29 47 46 56 60 78 86 8 13.3 8th Winchester 61 47 47 52 41 36 27 29 48 19 70.4 9th Winchester 58 47 56 58 62 61 72 84 98 14 19.4 11th Winchester 63 68 72 81 55 57 77 91 102 11 14.3 12th Winchester 38 38 33 32 43 55 61 67 75 8 13.1 14th Winchester 68 52 46 54 52 45 57 55 48-7 -12.3 Winchester Totals 15882 16209 17048 839 5.3 Averag es 64 66.2 67.3 70.7 3.5 7 Page 45 Version 1.1b

Page 46 Version 1.1b

Page 47 Version 1.1b

Page 48 Version 1.1b

Page 49 Version 1.1b

Page 50 Version 1.1b

Page 51 Version 1.1b

Page 52 Version 1.1b

Page 53 Version 1.1b

Page 54 Version 1.1b

Page 55 Version 1.1b

Page 56 Version 1.1b

Page 57 Version 1.1b

Page 58 Version 1.1b

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

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