Little league in my Northern Virginia area is still strong. There are generally a small number of players who only play travel but for the most part the 12 and under supplement little league with travel teams playing double headers on weekends and some doing tournaments. Personal preference is to have good volunteer coaches that in all fairness often do have players on the top 25% of the team category. Are there always going to be accusations of daddy ball? Of course but compare that to a coach whose goal may be to make $3,000 for a season and really not be that invested in the players development. I've seen all the various problems of both sides good and bad. There are great volunteer coaches and great paid coaches. There are also coaches horrendous in both categories.
Cost is what you want it to be for the most part. There are almost always lower cost teams run by volunteers. If the players get repetitions and game situations that is a win.
Even at older ages travel was a bit of a waste. Teams would travel to South Carolina and play two out of four teams from a ten mile radius of home. Not to mention college coaches don't really care that much about seeing the player in a tournament as much as seeing them. I know there is the issue of coaches seeing players but getting a coach from an interested school to see a player is a challenge. Sure the truly elite teams have more coaches than there are players. For the top 5% of players travel is necessary. For kids that are going to end up at a mid major or DII/III school playing and getting a coach to come watch is important. Obviously, NOVA is a dense population with lots of competitive teams so probably an outlier.
The biggest failure for most is thinking that the 20 swings at practice and various drills are going to make little Johnny a really good player. Most of the better players are hitting, fielding and throwing daily with a parent or a coach. Outsourcing daily reps is costly. I would tell parents before investing a dime in a hitting coach to buy a net, tee and bucket of balls so the kid could get reps in daily. A weekly lesson doesn't work unless there is daily feedback.
I'll bring out the discussion of race in sports. I think there is little secret to the racial makeup of various sports. I don't hear anyone complain that the NBA does not have enough out reach program for Caucasians, Hispanics or Asians. It is obviously a lot more challenging for inner city populations to play baseball versus basketball. One of the failures of baseball is to develop small sided game concepts. You can play basketball two on two, half court minus. For baseball you need a few more players and space. If you have space you can play home run derby, a game we used to call flys and grounders, hotbox, etc... Unfortunately at five we put nine kids in the field to watch one kid hit off a tee. Baseball 5-7 would be better with some modified games for most kids. Maybe a tee with just five fielders and a field shaped with more 50 degree field versus 90 where kids are basically trying to hit the ball up the middle. Then kids could just play a game where the batter runs to first, then to home and is safe or out based on kids throwing to home. Just an idea but something that creates more action and at bats to focus on hitting, catching and throwing. Soccer does small sided development which is helpful. Otherwise it would be the ultimate herd ball.
When it comes to kids leaving the sport at 13 I think there is a clear reason. You can be 13 and go on a soccer field or basketball court and kick the ball, take shots, rebound, etc... and be fairly mediocre and still enjoy the game. In baseball the ball will find you whether at the plate or in the field at your most vulnerable time. Failure is very often and very specific. There is only one kid batting or catching the ball. Failure is very specific to each situation. Team sport with highly isolated opportunities for success or failure. I used to find soccer so amusing in one respect. If a center defender gets beat the parents generally are mildly displeased there is a general grown of how could that happen? If a kid on offense is wide open getting past the center defender and then shanks the ball the parents all say "Great try." For the most part in basketball and soccer there are numerous touches with contested play. Kick a ball poorly and it still has a 50-50 to end up on your team. Get beat on defense and there is often a chance of another player picking up the play or the player screwing up on offense. Not surprisingly around 13 is when kids can mentally assess where they are in the sports pyramid. Do you want to stick with baseball where you stand out as a lower skilled player of play a sport where you can kind of blend in or have skills that work for defense i.e. poor soccer foot skills but fast is useful. Being a bad shot but able to dribble or rebound in basketball. Baseball is a tough mental game for a below average player. There is no hiding or blending in. There are lots of reasons to gravitate to other sports and 13 is often the age kids start migrating to a particular sport or none at all.
My son had a great little league experience and the kids from that age were long time friends. It does have many problems but overall little league is the best bang for the buck and fun for kids. Hopefully, it will survive.