All Activity

We're both probably missing stuff here as not everything is available/clearly defined yet. Supposedly the SB+ stuff is being cleaned up right now and some of this confusion should go away. I really wish they had just published hardcopy leader guides for the wolves-aol. Hoping back and forth between the handbooks and the website is going to get old fast.

Let me kick the hornets nest here. During the NAM the marketing presentation broke down the demographics by race and locality of BSA and made some crazy claims. Specifically nationals marketing was concerned about over-representation of Asians and Whites, and suburban and rural. I had to just accept the numbers on what national considers suburban/rural/core city membership (right?); however, they gave percentages of membership race composition and I took those right away and compared them to the 2020 US census national composition and BSAs racial makeup is +/- 1% by racial composition. There is no racial disparity in BSA; contrary to perceived exclusion, or whatever people are thinking, statistically the disparity is not there. Yet again there was the claim that Asians and Whites are over-represented; it's just a DEI dog-whistle. National also talked about male vs female but with far lest zeel except that female membership is a constant year-over-year increase. Female membership is currently right around 8% of the total membership. That's the BIG disparity; which is why we're changing our name from Boy Scouts of America to Scouting America. Our energies should be on recruiting as many people as possible; however, our target should be more than just growth, but exceptional growth for young women. They're 51% of the population so statistically speaking we're underserving young women until they reach 51% of the membership. This effort though is going to get watered down and distracted from because nationals marketing and HR/DEI are more focused on why we're over serving Asian and White males. 

When you asked those people to step up did you provide any written position descriptions? In my experience literally taking the position descriptions out of the leader guides and providing them works wonders. Written position descriptions sets fair barriers for people. Did you explain that volunteering for the position is not forever and is a 1 year obligation that they can renew or walk away from?  I am involved with several units and I will compare and contrast the best functioning to the worst functioning. The best functioning literally just runs the program; no bullshit, no "we do it this way because" no "we've always done it this way" no "well the unit leader likes it this way" its STFU we're doing it by the book. This is your position description, we want you to do your position specific training so you have a baseline idea of what the unit leaders do, we're asking you to do this for 1 calendar year, and if you want to stay on after that for another year, great; if things are not working out and you want to try something else great. This unit has every position filled except FOS chair. Contrast that to the unit that is the worst functioning: it's a total s-show admixture of some book stuff, some a unit leader 20 years ago made shit up stuff, the new unit leader wants to put his stamp on it made up stuff, position descriptions are made up and barely recognizable to the literature, people outright refuse to do training, and there are people guilted into staying involved after their kids leave the program and EVERYONE sees that and is scared of stepping up. This unit has about half the functional roles filled and of those roles there are multiple that are filled by people who start every parent meeting with "my kid is no longer in the program I am leaving at X date!" which turns into X+N when that date hits and no one has stood up. The unit is going to implode, just totally collapse if one of these parents gets a new job, or get sick, just has one of those really good only a monster would blame them for quitting reasons.   

So how do you reconcile your findings against nationals findings? 

But I know not how to rebuild an eye lost to trauma, nor repair a broken bone, nor restore breath to a crushed body. I DO  know how to discuss safety in advance of horrific loss. Extremism in defense of Safety is no Vice.