Restructuring and Membership Numbers
National Governance, National Operations, Opinions 11 Comments 
2004 restructure, core business strategy, frances hesselbein, gsusa, kathy cloninger, national board, tough cookies
Ever since I started reading about the changes GSUSA made right before I began as a volunteer, I have been very curious about how we got to the point we are today and what happened between the time I finished as a girl in 1989 to when I started back as a volunteer in 2010. I joined in the middle of a very big upheaval on both the national and council level and had no background knowledge as to what had gone on just a few years earlier. I just knew something major had happened. And I wanted to know what, how, and why. Now I’m sure some people will say there’s no point in this exercise of mine because it’s water under the bridge, and we should concentrate on moving forward. I agree about moving forward, but I also disagree about there being no point to rehashing what happened. I am very much a big picture kind of person, and I would like to know the history and background of this upheaval to better understand how to move forward in the correct direction. That’s just the way I work. Plus I’m a big Girl Scout nerd, so why not? 😉
As I learn about this reconstruction via various sources, I keep coming back to one big question – why did we go through this when membership numbers were rising?
Recently, I came across this article entitled Frances Hesselbein’s Merit Badge in Leadership about the executive director of GSUSA from 1976 to 1990. If you haven’t read this article yet or aren’t familiar with her, stop right now and read it. I’m personally reading her autobiography right now and will write more about it later. She was the executive director while I was in Scouts (1981 to 1989/Gold Award), so you can definitely say that I was a direct product of the program she implemented when she came on board.
In 1976, membership had declined sharply since 1970 (3.92 million in 1970 to 3.2 million in 1976) and showed no signs of slowing down:
Due to this dire situation, Hesselbein began a comprehensive restructuring of the organization which brought Girl Scouting up to date to reflect the societal changes of the times and to welcome minorities among other things. A change in the style of leadership was key. More about this later. My point for including this information is contrast the circumstances of the 1976 revamp to the 2004 one led by Kathy Cloninger, the CEO of GSUSA from October 2003 to November 2011.
In her 2012 book Tough Cookies, Cloninger states that one of the reasons why the 2000’s shakeup had to occur was a declining membership (pg. 79):
When Girl Scouts of the USA began to confront its challenges in 2004, we were already facing membership decline. Historically, the traditional way for girls to take part in Girl Scouting was by joining a troop. But troop membership had begun shrinking in the early 1990s, partly because girls, especially as they aged into middle school, were starting to feel that belonging to a troop was uncool.
Cloninger then goes on to explain that membership numbers in the 1990s were bolstered by non-troop outreach activities which offered a shorter and in her opinion, a less comprehensive program. She states that it wasn’t a sustainable way to keep Girl Scouts strong, and a shakeup was needed. According to her, the program wasn’t in a crisis, but “Girl Scouting was in a condition that, if a few more years passed without change, we might find ourselves regretfully saying as the door closed for the last time, ‘The handwriting was on the wall. We just didn’t see it.’ (pgs. 77-78).”
Here are the membership numbers from 1992 to 2003:
There was a decline from 1992 (3.51 million overall) to 1996 (3.39 million), but the numbers started to turn upward in 1997 (3.53 million) and kept rising until its peak in 2003 (3.85 million). Did the outreach program start around 1997?* If so, you could find a correlation that outreach diluted membership numbers if you can prove that the number of troop members continued to decline from 1997 to 2003 while outreach in turn not only made up for the declining numbers, but also offset it by that much more in order to boost numbers that ended up close to the 1970 peak of 3.92 million. But can this really be considered enough of a red flag to justify revamping the entire program? The sharp decline in the 1970s definitely met this criteria, but I am not so sure about this one. I am not privy to the numbers other than overall ones, so I obviously can’t make a determination.
I also have to ask if the conclusion that “the overall movement was losing its sense of exactly what it was that we deliver to girls” (pg. 79) could be reached between the time that Cloninger started as CEO (October 2003) and when the restructuring process began in 2004. I realize she came to the position as a council CEO with a lengthy tenure, so she was obviously very familiar with the program. But I just can’t fathom that you can do all of this research on membership numbers and the outreach program (not to mention the organizational structure, overall systems, etc.) and then decide in two or three months time to make such a radical change. Especially considering the GSUSA CEO position had been open for eight months before that. But maybe the fact that this doesn’t make sense to me is why I don’t make the big bucks and play armchair quarterback instead. Hindsight is 20/20, etc., etc. I’m a pretty cautious person and like to know every possible bit of information before jumping in the deep end, so I don’t follow the thought process here.
I’m sure this wasn’t all Cloninger’s idea. I am going to assume the National Board and perhaps the previous CEO or interim CEO had discussed this upheaval at some point and had put some major thought behind it along with the time it deserved. Was just tweaking the current program considered as an option at any point? I’m hoping this was the case. Right? Someone tell me I’m right and we just didn’t rush headlong into this. If we did, I’ll start wondering if there were other motivations or agendas at work here. Now that I think about it, maybe I don’t want to know.
I realize there were other reasons for this reorganization such as funding models, systems, and program delivery. But the “declining membership numbers” one is questionable to me, so that’s why I’m asking about it. (*see below for mark out reason)
I welcome any insight into my question(s) whether they are in favor of the direction change in 2004 or against it. If you can cite any sources, that would be even better.
Addendum 10/26/17: Since publishing this post, I learned about the Girl Scouting: For Every Girl, Everywhere initiative launched in 2001. I can see how this would have boosted non-troop numbers, but does it explain the upturn from 1997 until then? Volunteer numbers started increasing during that time as well.
*Addendum 1//5/18: I received more in-depth information regarding numbers, and after charting and graphing them out (such a nerd, I know), I am walking back statements I struck out above for the most part. I’ll write about it in more detail in another upcoming post.
Yet another addendum 1/26/22: I finally got around to exploring this topic more in-depth and headed down a 40 page rabbit hole (as I always seem to). I actually never figured out why GSUSA leadership felt that a small decrease in troop membership warranted such a large overhaul, but I explore that in my paper.
I congratulate you. You have my respect and gratitude for asking the “why” question that no one else has had the courage to ask. As a CEO whose council was merged out of existence I have some serious opinions on the subject. My council had a 30% + market share, the highest retention rate in the country, and a steady membership growth rate of 4 to 6% annually. If you want my thoughts I will gladly share them either on email or telephone.
Marilyn, I would encourage you to share your thoughts with all of us. Perhaps a guest post on the blog?
I’m unfamiliar with the business reasons for the council merges, but I do remember the logic / propaganda behind the program shift. Changes actually started in 2000 if memory serves, but I would argue that the national office still forgets to make life easy on the volunteers. I have plenty of the resources that were produced during those changes if you’d like to discuss further.
I was a staff member during the re-organization process. This is part of what we were told: (1) Councils were being merged so that they would have enough businesses in their area so the councils would be able to solicit donations; (2) That larger councils would be able to pay their employees adequately; (3) the program would be enhanced by the Journeys. (4) That the current badges and signs would be updated and the girls would have more options; (5) that membership would grow because of the new programs; (6) there would be more local programs available for all the girls.
I retired some time ago, but keep up with local events. The membership has dropped, most of the council are in some sort of financial trouble, very little has been done to update the badges, and local programs are certainly not what we were lead to expect. I have hopes the new CEO will listen to what the volunteers want.
To add on to what Bonnie said:
(4) That the current badges and signs would be updated and the girls would have more options;
-that’s a laugh because instead they revamped the program and went from probably a hundred choices to like 30! And all of the new badges have an exciting step like “talk to someone who knows…” because you know girls just love to sit and listen to a lecture! LOL
(6) there would be more local programs available for all the girls.
– this may be true if you are close to where the heart of your Council meets. I am in GSCNC and am about 1.5 hrs away from DC. They offer lots of stuff. My favorites are on a schoolnight, at 6pm. bc it’s SOOOOOOOOOOOO easy to drive into DC during rush hour, 2 hrs away from home, and then get back home at 10-11pm. NOT!
I certainly understand questioning the powers that be! I do it all the time in my local Council. However, I think the time for questioning the changes is past regardless of whether they were valid reasons or not. Now is the time to look toward the future and figure out what needs to be done to “fix” all the “fixes!”
Just a note: I loved the article about Frances Hesselbein but not all of the information was accurate … it mentioned that she started the job of Executive Director in 1976 and that she was responsible for changing from the “iconic Girl Scout handbook” to four handbooks aimed at different ages. Please note – the four handbooks first came out in 1963 long before Hesselbein!
Hi Lori – thanks for your comment. I see where you are coming from, but as I mentioned, I am the type of person that wants to know what happened in order to figure out what’s the best way to fix something. I am all about solutions and that is my end goal, but I like to know the whole picture first. That’s just the way I am and the way I work. Although I am not new to GS, the overhaul was before my time as a volunteer and has been extremely puzzling to me considering the successful program that I personally experienced growing up. I would just like to know how we got to this point, and what were the true justifications for it? Knowing those things will point us in the right direction in my opinion. “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
This is the conclusion that a federal judge came to when the Manitou Council brought suit against GSUSA —
‘Anyway it’s only by
picking a couple of peak years that the national organization
can claim that membership in the Girl Scouts is
declining. The number of Girl Scouts was higher in 2003
and 2004 (when the realignment plan was adopted)
than for all years in the Girl Scouts’ long history except
1964 to 1973. And as a percentage of the national girl
population, Girl Scout membership was higher in 2003
and 2004 than in any years since 1973 except for the years
1991 through 1993.’ link here —http://www.leydiglaw.com/userfiles/file/cases%20page.grirl%20scouts%20second%20opinion.pdf
http://www.leydiglaw.com/userfiles/file/cases%20page.grirl%20scouts%20second%20opinion.pdf
Thanks – it is interesting that you posted this, because I bookmarked this a few weeks ago and haven’t had the time to read it: http://www.leydiglaw.com/default.asp?iID=GFMEEI
Thanks for this! Ever since my daughter started Girl Scouts, I’ve been mystified by why choices were made to turn what used to be such an awesome, girl building program into what it seems to be today–which in my opinion is very think in the box, do what you’re told, be a good girl and build the resume in the right way kind of program. That doesn’t build leaders. It builds burned out high-achievers who make choices based on external approval.
It just wasn’t like that when I was a girl. We were encouraged to follow our interests and to think more.
It’s funny to see all this [the old Girl Scouts] ” aspired to win homemaker and storytelling badges” stuff. When we were Brownies I remember making hospital corners on a bed, and I sucked at it. We made puppets once. I did the Books badge on my own…but I’m a writer, so that kind of makes sense. We did Fashion, Fun and Fitness…
But that was the extent of it. We camped, did service projects, traveled across the country and went to Our Cabana, learned about all kinds of careers (including STEM careers), did leadership projects…
And, as a total klutz, the two things that I left GS with were the ability to build a fire by myself (which mattered–to this day, when I think I can’t do something, I say to myself “but I can build a fire!” That’s STILL all it takes to push myself harder.) And talking about cookie sales helped me score my first two jobs.
Homemaking skills just weren’t in the equation at all. Today’s program with Barbie dolls, all the science of sparkle stuff, and Journeys that tell girls exactly what they are supposed to think about an issue, seem to be much more girly and stereotypical. In fact, that “girliness” is the the aspect of the current program that most concerns me. I I’ve worked so hard to teach my daughter that she doesn’t have to define herself by pink. And here is Girl Scouts, pushing the docile, girly, people pleasing pink stuff.
Your blog makes so much sense!! I do hope the people in charge read it and take it seriously. I feel like, at some point, a whole bunch of think-in-the-box marketing majors who grew up thinking Girl Scouts were dorks got a hold of the program and made it so conformist that it isn’t really set up to develop true leaders. The current program feels MUCH more 1950s than the program I participated in.