ParkMan

I've gotta think that in a Scouting program that is contracting, this is going to be an all too common occurrence. A lodge/chapter structure setup when Scouting had two or three times the members is going to struggle and try to figure out how to have critical mass. Like others, I'd rather see 10 committed members than 100 members who don't care. I'm getting the impression that many of these chapters are at the point where there are 10 members all looking at each other and saying "where is everyone?" So you're the chapter chief in a district with 500 Scouts and 10 members in the OA. W

Your language is a bit inflammatory - so not sure you're really serious in this question. I would believe that in any community - no matter how advantaged or disadvantaged, there are people of character. I would think your task is to start with them. Build a program that those people will want to be part of. Then leverage that core program and expand it to include youth who are disadvantaged.

Yes - but politics has a different dynamic. In an election there is a definitive winner. So, since we live in a primarily two party system it becomes a binary choice. So, appealing to the core constituency of one of those two choices is generally a good thing. In Scouting, there's not such a stark choice. The vast majority of available kids do not join Scouting. Further, there is not one political constituency in Scouting. I live in a pretty progressive, secular area. What matters to families in our area is very different than in others. Frankly - the BSA made a huge mistake eve

From what I've seen the membership losses are a result of two general areas - relevance/alignment with families and program quality. We all think that Scouting is great - but many families are either not interested or have looked and just don't find Scouting all that compelling for their kids. Many families try Scouting, but just don't find the program enough to continue year after year. Did Dale impact this? I don't know. But, even if it did it was caught up in a much larger trend where Scouting is becoming less and less relevant to many families. I think it's more likel

A big part of this is structural. Since troops are owned by Chartered Organizations there is an inherent longevity that does not exist in the GSUSA. Further, the GSUSA has a rule (as I understand it) that requires that troops carry over no money year to year. On the flip side, pack/troop bank accounts are never seen by the BSA or local council. Our council has no idea how much money is in reserve in our troop. We actively maintain a reserve so that we can spend as needed instead of constantly chasing money.

I hear you and good point. I think I internalized a while back that this split was going to eventually happen - it was just a question of when. So, now that it's happening, it's not so much a negative reflection on anyone, but more just a question of how to manage it. In councils which will be significantly smaller in January it will be more challenging to adjust. But, I'd coach that SE to avoid descriptions like the Titanic or that it's bleak. The Titanic was an accident and a tragedy. This - is not the case here. So, I think it's natural for folks there to mourn what once was,

Hah! I listened for 20 minutes on the way home from work and eventually decided I was bored and gave up.

Really feels like this headline ought to be something like "LDS stops using Scout program as primary church youth program and most LDS members are not expected to continue in Scouting on their own." You've got to have a lot of sympathy for people working for the BSA and those involved making decisions in the most heavily LDS areas, but I think this is exactly what I'd expect to see happen. This seems like an adjustment to typical Scouting participation levels in these areas. I wish them all the best in this transition.

Reading the remarks here is interesting. Rea There are always worst case scenarios, problem youth, and problem parents. But, for the most part, interactions like this are more often the case which can be resolved with a little explaining with a parent. I continue to think the right approach here is to take this at face value, explain why you do what you do the parent, and then have a friendly conversation. Maybe the parent has a different perception of what happened. Maybe there is some extenuating circumstance. But, before jumping to all kinds of more serious conclusions, have a ch

I imagine lots of things hurt Scouting - recent negative publicity is one of them. But, sure I imagine it does to some extent. Nationwide I think something like 5-10% of boys are in Scouting. I'm sure it's too early to measure for girls. That number has been trending down for decades. Did that number decrease even more because of the recent negative publicity? Perhaps. But, they are not the cause of why only 5-10% are in Scouting.

Very well said. We see pretty much the same thing here. In our area internet connectivity really isn't the issue, but everything else you describe matches really well. What The Powers That Be (TPTB in my book) really seem to have missed is that 75% of training occurs in the interaction between people. The content is only 25% of the value. My recommendation to national: Use online training to cover the most basic of information. Make it one hour or less Start a national campaign to hold face-to-face basic leader training in every district annually. That training shoul

Sure - happy to elaborate. Maybe it's just a local thing here. On starting a new unit: We just never see it anymore. In the last decade, I've seen 2 new packs in our district. Both were off shoots of other existing packs which had gotten very large and a leader decided to try something closer to home. We've seen 1 new troop - a troop for girls that started alongside an existing troop. In my time, I've never seen a CO decide - "we want to start a Scouting unit". In the same time, I can count 7 packs & troops that have closed down. This doesn't count the LDS units we'

I find that all the negatives in the media and within the Scouting community do hurt us. The national media issues don't hurt Scout recruiting too much. if you're known to have a good unit and work at letting people know, the Scouts are out there. Very, very rarely have I seen anything in the national media about Scouting impact us locally with kid interest. Where all these negatives are killing us is with volunteer engagement. Locally, I could double Scouting in 5 years if we had enough experienced volunteers who were helping. Example - I was talking with a leader in a smaller troop

@mashmaster - Sorry to hear about the incident with the parents. Yes, it's remarkably frustrating to feel that parents are constantly putting up obstacles to you making the right decisions. I think I'd simply ask the parent "why?". My note would be something like: As Scoutmaster, conversations like this are pretty routine. A big part of why their kid is in Scouting is to benefit from being with other youth in a constructive environment. But, as kids are trying to figure out their own path they will make mistakes. Part of being Scoutmaster to let the kids know when they've cross

Same here. As Committee Chair I always did it. Every listing of Committee Chair responsibilities lists recharter as the CC"s job. I'd encourage you to sit down with the Committee Chair and come up with a list of responsibilities for the different adult volunteer positions you have and think you need to have in the troop - including the SM & CC. Don't worry about whether you have the role filled today. What's important is to describe the volunteer structure you want to have. As prep for that, both you and the CC should go through the online Troop Committee training.

I've often heard that the key requirement to bring a leader is the desire to lead. The key requirement to bring a servant is a desire to serve. So, I think the key requirement to being a Scout or Scouter is a desire to be one. That seems an appropriate requirement to me. If you desire to join the movement and adhere to the principles in it, we welcome you. (That of course excludes the folks who are excluded because of prior bad acts) That seems about right to me.

Exactly. Focus on bringing together great instructors into a setting where Scouts can be interested in and learn alot in a shorter, focused format.

Sorry - didn't mean to make it seem like an argument.

I think that may be a regional issue. Around here, most of our Scouts start - either at Cub Scouts or at Scouts BSA because of an interest in what we do. Sure, along the way many parents think - "hey, my son (now daughter too) is doing this, it would be good for college/job is they also earned Eagle." But I know of very few, if any, who joined for college or future employment reasons. But, I do agree on your core point. The game needs to be fun. If the game isn't fun, then the Scouts won't stick around to absorb the purpose.

My belief is that providing additional opportunities for Scouts is a good thing. Just because many are bad doesn't mean it's not a reasonable approach - it's just that we have lots of bad events that need to be improved. Fully concur. Let's celebrate good examples of Scouting. Let's correct or remove bad examples of Scouting.

I understand what this says - but not what it means. Why would scouts sign up and these be so prevalent if the Scouts didn't want to attend? I don't think that parents are forcing most Scouts to attend these. I don't put a lot of stock into what national encourages/discourages right now. No disrespect to them, but we're stuck in a lowest common denominator period. A focus on building good district level programs is not even on the BSA radar at this point. So, kinda like with the G2SS where we outlawed wheel barrows because somebody got hurt by one we make these kind of decisions a

I think a breakdown like they have in UK makes a lot of sense. We talk so much on this forum about how Scouts get worn out by long, repetitive programs. WIthin our units we tend to differentiate - but I think that if the BSA were to recognize this it would be very good for the program. My proposal would even be pretty minor. Keep Cubs as a group. Keep Scouts BSA as a group. But focus on clarifying program and activities for the two age ranges in each. i.e.: Cubs Lions/Tigers/Wolves Bears/Webeblos Scouts Middle School High Schoo

Agreed. One big mistake that we make in "BSA" Scouting is that we don't differentiate well between the two very different age levels in Scouts BSA. Scouts 11-14 are often quite different than those 15-18. In my mind, I see four distinct age ranges: Lions/Tigers/Wolves Bears/Webelos Scouts BSA 11-14 Scouts BSA 15-18 So yes, while I agree with your point I'd suggest our approach needs to be tailored to each age range. I think you're saying much the same thing. One trap we need to avoid is that of changing our program to be more relevant. I think STEM S

I respect the deep knowledge of the posters here. We've all been posting together on various topics for years. In many walks of life there is a tendency to look at something we don't think is going well and arrive at the conclusion that it a can't be done well. My sense is that's happening here. We all have stories of bad summer camp merit badge classes and badge merit badge college classes. These events are generally popular. Are some poorly run - without doubt. But not all. So wouldn't it be good for the Scouts to continue to have these popular events, but just make them bet

To use the old phrase: "A game with a purpose" The purpose needs to be worthwhile The game needs to be relevant.