ParkMan

We've noticed in Cub recruiting that a certain segment of the population - when they become aware of Scouting, it likely to check it out. I suspect that we'll see a robust membership year next year because those kids that were predisposed to it this year will simply wait it out and try next year. I would not worry too much about the doom and gloom right now. Of course kids are not participating and joining when the units are not able to do traditional Scouting

It's probably worth noting that program fees are a proportionally smaller part of council budgets. If, for example, you have a council with 10,000 scouts and each is charged $50. That nets a council about $500,000. A council of 10,000 scouts is probably carrying a budget in the 3-4 million dollar range. When you start looking at council spending, you see things like: direct event expenses staff administrative staff (SE, treasurer, registrar, office staff) marketing staff fundraising staff field support staff (DEs) camp

I'm not sure if that was in response to my posts. But, if so - let me clarify. I am not anti-council nor am I anti-professional. I like most of what my council does and I consider many professionals dear friends. I simply believe that we have to be willing to be open to new ideas. I believe we also have to be willing to trust our volunteers. The world have become so much more connected and networked. We've seen all kinds of transformations in how we all work and live. Goodness, even with Covid I've now been home for 9 months and my work has barely missed a beat. I hope that

Yes - you are correct in understanding the idea. It might be volunteers, it might be someone who is looking to make a small business out of supporting units. Again - I'm not specifically lobbying for this idea. Yet, when you start looking at different models for supporting units ideas like this could emerge. We see increased competition like this is all kinds of other walks of life. Further, today it really isn't all that necessary for a council to be local anymore. In my council more and more things are being done by Zoom. What if everything was done by Zoom?

While I am not at a point where I would lobby for any particular outcome - but I think things could become more creative. One possibility could be the end of monopoly status for councils. This could result in small, enterprising councils in remote locations offering an online only Scouting support model for units for a nominal fee. Units would purchase awards through such a council and submit advancement reports. But there would be no local infrastructure - no districts, no local offices to fund, no fundraising teams, and no local professionals. This would result in units being able t

The question I keep asking myself is what kind of value could a council provide and demonstrate for a $50 program fee. This is particularly challenging in light of the sheer amount of volunteer hours that are contributed at the district & council level. On my list: maintain free access to council camps. This is a clear, tangible value to units. free or minimal fee participation in district and council programming. Camporees, day camps, etc. ought to be subsidized. free training for volunteers. free rank awards. Yes - this is a national item, but basic advance

I agree that program fees are preferable to FOS. Yet, we need to recognize that program fees need to be accompanied with tangible value add from the council. Charging a Scout $50 per year to fund council operations need to then be accompanied with some sort of obvious return on that fee. One of the challenges with the transition to program fees is that the funding structure is designed to show value to people who donate to Scouting. DEs and staffs who are focused on building and growing Scouting are working to accomplish goals that are interesting to people who are donating to Scouting

SE compensation is not the issue with the council structure we have today. I am not supporting the current SE salaries. SE salaries become yet another example that people point to as an issue of council mis-management, but it is not the primary cause. If people were happy with the council operations the complaints would be less. Since people are unhappy, SE salaries become as example that we point to. Shrinking SE salaries will only serve to remove that specific complaint - it will not resolve the core concerns.

You too sound like a remarkable professional and I thank you for your service. I regret that you felt animosity from volunteers. There is something in the Scouting program in the past 25 years (and maybe longer) that has setup many adversarial relationships. It's not just volunteers and professionals - it's within the volunteer ranks too. I have a several friends who are professionals through my years as a volunteer. There are good people and bad people in any role - volunteers, professionals, you name it. The good people you cherish, the bad people you tend to ignore.

Scouting is a very funny enterprise. As a professional, the SE is not that senior a position. I've got numerous volunteers in my unit and district who are more accomplished professionally than our SE. Yet, the organization is setup to treat the SE like they are a high level politician or dignitary. The same is true with the council president. It strikes me that some humility and understanding of servant leadership in these roles is a good thing. I'm constantly reminded that we are all here as servants of unit level Scouters. I think a SE and DEs who recognize this are an asset to th

I'd be up for a simple registration database. Any unit can sign anyone up as a MBC. They go into the database, and any Scouter in the district can see the list and contact them. Checks and balances are done through things like YPT, background checks, and completion of training for the position. The district committee may choose to do some work to recruit more or to encourage those whose registration is about to lapse to continue - but I think they days of volunteers maintaining lists can be behind us. I don't doubt that the BSA's IT systems are weak. As a volunteer I'm happy to

It sounds like we have a similar perspective on this. One of the strengths of the BSA structure is the ability to tailor individual programs to the needs of specific local communities. The ability of a community of Scouts and Scouters to tailor the application and depth of the Duty To God component is an example of that. I hope that this accommodation for liability reasons does not impact that in the slightest. I do believe this is where the Commissioner teams will need to be active in encouraging those units who make the ownership transition to continue a "hearts and minds" connection

It shouldn't. Too much is made of the ownership issue here. Whether the CO is the technical owner or an informal organizer, it really shouldn't matter too much. If you troop meets at a location, it would be good to integrate into that community. So, it really shouldn't matter at all who provides the legal ownership of the unit. In fact, the BSA should make this ownership question one of merely enforcement of YPT and training rules.

So much of this is simply the result of too much historical legacy. registering without YPT, merit badge counselor lists not being accessible. So much of this could be cleaned up with a small, streamlined online system.

I see what you're saying. I misunderstood. Sure - maybe it's just us, I'd just wrap the conservation on this point to say that I think this expectation that the DCs report to the DE is a mistake. The DCs report to their council counterparts. When the pros have to (or even can) step in then it weakens the need for volunteers to step up. I suspect that we are seeing lots of cases where the professionals have assumed too more responsibility for the work in Scouting, creating an unsustainable model. When I was in a DC role, I was ready to walk away from it simply because I got tired of

I did. cburkhardt posted it: I read this as a lot of volunteer oversight and management. Am I wrong? EDIT: Further, the job description is raise money, grow membership, & oversee volunteers. This seem undoable in a large modern district. We've all been remarking about that for years now. Why not take a step back, focus the job on the highest value add areas, and then trust and enable volunteers to do the rest?

I have some good friends who are and were DEs. As such, I recognize there is a role for professionals. My sense is that as the job description has become broader and many of the responsibilities of volunteers transferred to professionals it is reaching the point of unsustainability. I think, for example, our DE for 75 units is spending 50% or more of his time just dealing with fires and another 25% responding to SE requests. This leaves only 25% for his strategic responsibilities. As a district/council volunteer - I see it now. The DE comes to a meeting to tell the District Chair w

I very often wonder how many of our issues at the district & council level are due to the loss of skills in our district volunteers. Unit service to me is a great example. Ideally, we have a person who can help units solve problems and be successful. Perhaps that person is in the unit. Perhaps it's someone in a district or council. Perhaps it's a volunteer or maybe a professional. Scouting for a long time has tried to have this person be a district volunteer. Then, when it got hard to recruit, we started looking to the DEs to do this work. Today, we are lucky is we have

As I looked through the job description, just about everything there is already done by volunteers. I do see that in some of these are some items around membership. If there was a reduced need to fund DEs, I could also see a reduced demand to grow membership. If Scouting membership is largely a function of interest - then he pressure to grow membership at all costs could be reduced. I agree - these are more appealing to someone paid to do them Yet, if we are not paying DEs, I sense this could be a more focused effort to pay for camps and other central resources. A few

We're quickly approaching the point where we have to start asking - what is the true value add of the DE role? If we have 1 DE per 100 units, what does that person do? If we have volunteer DEs with only a fraction the bandwidth, what essential services do they provide that a District Chair or District Commissioner (and their teams) do not?

I would simply offer that there will always be reasons to not do anything. Or perhaps in the case of certain badges a higher level of supervision is required. In either event, it doesn't seem an insurmountable evolution of how youth and adults relate to each other. I think of these situations something like a mixed gender environment. As an adult male, I would be exceedingly hesitant to ever put hands on an a female. Not so much because of lawsuits or allegations- but simply out of respect for personal boundries. I would look for alternative approaches to demonstrate techniques or

While I'm normally one to postulate what might be coming, I have a hunch that now is a difficult time in which to predict the future. No touch policies just seem to make common sense to me at this point - regardless of lawsuits, insurance, or the like. Yes, it will make teaching a very small number of things more difficult - but it's not that big a deal. In 2020, I think we all understand personal space and can recognize not to invade it. And yes - there will always be common sense exceptions such as a parent touching their child. As for Scouting looking drastically different. Pe

This is in many ways the question that we are all struggling to answer. And in this I think we see that even millennials are looking around for an answer. I'm also reminded that we are not even really marketing to millennials any more - we're targeting Gen-Z and increasingly Gen-A youth. I think it would be a mistake for us to infer this. The risk of death is certainly lower today. However, the challenges to succeed are as great as they've been. The skills kids have evolved for certain, but that doesn't mean that there are fewer skills needed. If I look at my p

I'm not for a moment suggesting that Scout skills will not keep you from dying. Ahh - I understand your point better now. I think the whole lifesaving thing in Scouting is overblown - but that's just me. Kids are all very different and join for different reasons. Some for lifesaving skills, some to learn outdoor skills, some just for fun. I think back to your prior comment: I'm just one that thinks that Scouting today is more about adventure and challenge for youth. The purpose is to prepare them for life, but it's the adventure and challenge that is the game. Back in the f

I'm not sure I'm following your point here. In our society today it will be a hard argument to make that learning scouting skills will keep you from death. While it is true, the prospect of someone leveraging these skills to save their life is 2020+ is very low. In not saying it won't happen, but the spectre of death for most kids isn't something they think about. That not withstanding. No system is perfect. We started discussing people 18 and over in Scouting and so I shared how I see it working. Lumping a 20 year old with a 12 year old and saying "go camp" isn't going to happen.