ParkMan

13 minutes ago, an_old_DC said:

So, you mean Unit Commissioners?

Could be.  But I think many unit commissioners are generalists.  Do they all really know how to solve the unit retention problem?

Just now, walk in the woods said:

Key word and tricky phrase.  It assumes units see retention as an issue and are willing to change.

Agreed.

My basic premise here is if you want to solve a problem, you focus on solving the problem.  The approach in the BSA to solving a problem usually seems to be a revamp of a training, an article in Scouting magazine, JTE, or some new rule.  I think we need to be more proactive than that.

I'm sure you are one of the experts.  By experts I mean real experts - someone with the experience, skills, and vision to help a unit improve it's retention.  This is not simply someone from council or national that got blessed with a title.  

As for who they are generally - based on how things work today - that's unclear.  The role description is someone knowledgeable in developing a unit plan and has experience in retaining a high percentage of the members in a scout unit.  That person would then go out and be a resource to other units that do not.  So, if you've got a troop of scouts, struggles with retention of older scouts, and wants to do improve retention, these experts would be out there to work with them.   We might think of them as a consultant.  Someone who gets engaged for a limited amount of time to help a unit improve.  Once done, they step back - perhaps being on call in case questions arise.

2 hours ago, Jameson76 said:

I think at the unit level you have to provide program that meets the different needs  You can all go on the outing, but they each can have the opportunity to participate as they need  Older scouts may camp apart a bit  Also with HS schedules they may want to crash in the afternoon.  We go to the lake and do tubing, older scouts may get a rougher ride  We go backpacking and look for loop options  Younger less experience do a 4 mile while older guys do a 9 mile .  Also do high adventure every summer in addition to camps to keep older scouts engaged  

Last point is understand you may not see them for a season.  That is what it is, welcome them when they are there

Engaging older scouts in solely on the local units

I agree that it's on the local units to retain their older scouts.  You describe nicely some of the considerations.

I'd like to see national do some thing I've never seen before in Scouting - really focus on fixing this.  For example - I'd like to see training on 14-17 program development and on retention.  I'd like to see true experts emerge who work with the troops on annual calendar and meeting structure. And so on.

55 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

I continue to believe though that the retention problem stems from crappy programming.  It's made worse because the BSA doesn't really have a plan for the 14-17 year old crowd.  

I don't make it a habit of quoting myself.  But, I hit send on this earlier than I meant to and wanted to expand a bit.

My point on retention is really just that as I look around my district, I see a drop off as boys get older.  Folks use terms like FUMES to describe it as if it's just an accepted thing.  However, there are other activities (such as sports) that I don't believe suffer the same problem.

My working theory for a while has been that at the boy scout level, the retention problem has stemmed from:

1) There are a lot of bad troops out there.  Sorry guys, but I look around my district and see it.  We read it here too. Troops that camp only ever so often, have boring meetings, have more drama than program, etc.  There was a time 40 years ago that you probably could put out a sign that said "Scouts wanted" and folks just showed up. But, now there is so much more competition that this no longer is a given.  I split the blame equally here between national/council/and units.

2) The Boy Scout program is tailored to 11-13 year olds, not so much the 14-17 year olds.  Yes, there are leadership opportunities are one gets older which retain some.  But, for others - after you've camped at the same spot 3 times, it just tiring.  A trip every two years to Philmont, the Summit, wherever isn't enough.  I fault national here for not focusing the discussion on how to retain these scouts.

I'd love to see national put concerted effort into fixing this.  I think it's not just a change in advancement requirements, but a concerted focus on quality & program.  Program materials, training, district level operations can all be improved.  Instead, I feel like we're getting quick fix band-aids, but not real solutions.

5 hours ago, NJCubScouter said:

First of all, I think that if there were ANY "program changes" made at exactly the same time as the transition to accepting girls as members, some people would scream to the high heavens about the program being "watered down" to accommodate girls - even if the program was actually being strengthened.  Second of all, I think the reason that changes are not made to increase retention is that there is no consensus as to what those changes should be.  That is played out in this forum all the time.  Every time a a program change is suggested, there are arguments against it.  There probably IS consensus that there should be fewer "homework badges" required for Eagle, but when a specific badge is being discussed, it is a different story.  Then there was the discussion of going back to the 1911 camping requirements (50 nights for Camping MB, I believe.)  Ok, but it's not going to happen.  Then there was the discussion of "classical Scouting" (or some similar term), where a lot of people were all for going "back" to an earlier decade, but then it turned out that everyone wanted a different decade, usually the decade in which they were a Scout.  (Except for the 70's, probably.)

I continue to believe though that the retention problem stems from crappy programming.  It's made worse because the BSA doesn't really have a plan for the 14-17 year old crowd.  

4 hours ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Have not seen the results of our troop's poll, but this is what I am hearing. Small die hard group against a "Linked Troop" girl's and a small die hard group for "Linked Troop" with girls. While the overwhelming majority think this is a mistake, they d do not have a problem with girls starting a separate troop and having nothing to do with the boys.

 

Yes, I am hearing complaints from the Scouts about too many parents and a Cub Scout sibling constantly camping with the troop.

This "Family Scouting" thing really isn't what it's being made out to be.  The "Scouts BSA" isn't a family camping club - it never has been, it never will be.  That just makes no sense for the BSA to even try that.  Any units that are doing that are just misusing the term.

Agreed - there surely will be mergers.

Makes me think the BSA had too many eggs in one basket.  Hopegully tbis will force them to try harder on recruiting and marketing.

This clearly was in the works before the vote.  I wouldn't just assume that the move to add girls was a reaction to lost revenue.  Instead, I really wonder if this is simply what happened when the BSA leadership found itself free of the pressure of the LDS church.

I wonder if we'll see some other, progressive changes in the next few years without the LDS influence.

Yeah - have to imagine this was well known.  While there will be a financial hit - this may actually be a blessing in disguise.  The BSA will be less impacted by a single religious group going forward.

We'll see a couple of units go in our district, but nothing dramatic.

2 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

We haven’t performed any ceremony for Webelos Scouts other than a short announcement and handing out rank badges.  

We do perform a simple ceremony for den advancement to next level.  We would start with the Tigers placing their Tiger neckerchiefs on the Lions who are now Tiger Scouts.  That same action would work its way up until Webelos place new Webelos neckerchiefs on the Bear Den Scouts.

Generally we perform both at the same Pack meeting and combined it could be a ceremony.

This is very similar to what we did.  There was no ceremony for Webelos to AOL though.

Sorry!

While I'm sure important votes happen - always figured it was like watching CSPAN.

1 hour ago, Chisos said:

I've been thinking of using the "Unit Scouter Reserve" (91U) position for folks like this.  Does anyone actually use it?

We're starting to do this too.  Right now it's the scouts when they join college - but it really could be anyone.

My only hesitation is that it seems like a weird name.

Thanks guys!

It's 35 registered volunteers - not 35 ASMs.  It's actually 15 ASMs and 20 Committee Members.  The reason we have this many is because we make a point to ask.  The adults pay their BSA fee, so it is no financial harm to have more.

I presume they register to be able to help out.  On the committee side, we do a pretty good job of getting folks specific jobs - so that number isn't crazy.  In fact, we have had folks change from ASM to MC because of their committee job.

Back from dinner.

@scoutldr - it's not that we don't get involvement.  We rarely have events canceled because of adults.  What tends to happen though is that it's the SM and some parents.  Maybe some of those parents are registered as ASMs maybe not.  But, the list of really active, engaged ASMs is pretty small.  The Scoutmaster likes to think of events by which adult is responsible for it.  He constantly asks for more adults to '"step up".  So it becomes a question of which adult is responsible for it.  We have all kinds of events that don't happen because there isn't an adult willing to be responsible for it.

I wouldn't say that the committee is trying to supervise the Scoutmaster.  The Scoutmaster goes to the Committee and says "we don't have an adult to organize this trip".  He then puts it on the committee to figure out who can help.  If anything, it's that the Scoutmaster invites the Committee to get involved.  Because we have a lot of registered adults, this kinda works.  Committee members and some ASMs step up to serve as adult lead on the trips.  But, just as often the SM ends up just doing it himself.  

I've never been terribly comfortable with this approach.  It just feels like every time a new event comes up, we scrounge around to figure out who can organize it.  That led me to thinking about - maybe I've got this all wrong.

@qwazse - That's what we've done historically.  Recruit ASMs from within the familes and get them registered.  Get them connected with the SM so they can get going.  But, as I mentioned earlier - we tend to get them signed up, but then not really give them a role.  This has me thinking - maybe I'm just doing this wrong.

Thanks guys - I appreciate the pointers.  

@sst3rd - I fully agree.  I'm a big fan of letting folks do their jobs and I've got no interest in being involved in programming.  My dilemma is that we don't really seem to leverage the ASMs all that much.  I think what happens is that they sign up, go on a few trips, but don't really have a role.  Eventually, they get bored of just being around and stop engaging.

** ADDING SOME MORE TEXT - SAVED TOO SOON **

Thanks.  A couple of followup questions.

So you see the CC looking at the yearly calendar and then filling each of the trips with registered leaders? Or, do you see it as a more general thing where the CC simply recruits more adult and then they sort out amongst themselvs who is camping when?

Im trying to figure out how involved the CC should be in figuring out who goes on what or organizes what.  The SM do a good job - so they don't need the CC more involved in hs business than needs be.  Looking for ideas on what's working for others.

I've got a bit of a dilemma and I was hoping to get some advice.

I'm the Committee Chair of a Troop. Scoutmaster has been involved for 20 years.  We've got a Troop of about 80 boys.  We've got lots of registered adults - 35 last I checked.  Half the adults are asms

The thing I've never quite figured out is how a troop gets adult participation at events. Whether it's a camping trip, service project, or other event, we struggle to get adults to step forward who will help out or even attend.

I understand that it's the boy's troop and that they should shoulder much of the leadership.  They themselves are lackluster about most events.  As the CC, I've encouraged the SM to get the boys more engaged.  But, he's just not comfortable with it.  He's got a view that we present opportunities - if the boys go, they go.  If they don't, the don't.

My dillema is that this is presenting two problems:

1) the quality of our outdoor program suffers.  The SM doesn't really guide the SPL to get trips planned, so it often falls on the adults.  Because we get lackluster participation - there are not a lot of adults with the skills and desire to do this.  As a result, we have lots of small, last minute trips.

2) our bench is pretty shallow.  We got the SM and a very active ASM.  But past that, our adults are less engaged in the program parts of things.  It is not unusual to have a trip get cancelled because neither the SM or ASM available.

My question is - how do you get folks more active?  Is it a culture thing? Is it a CC that is finding adults for every task?  Is it a SM that builds a group of active helpers?

Something different?

3 hours ago, Jameson76 said:

Now, yes society has changed.  The point is there is still that needed for an organization to work with and help develop boys into men who can be a positive asset to their community. 

To me, this is the only real argument in favor of a boys only program.  Would the scouting mission of developing youth be better accomplished by a separate program for boys (BSA) and a seperate one for girls (GSUSA).

What BP thought 100 years about gender separation isn't really all that relevant.  There are just too many other groups that started in that era with separate programs that are now unified.  Its hard to accept the argument that BP was correct when others who did the same are were wrong.

Welcome to the forum @plumchas!

Removing extra tasks from the den leaders is a great idea.  They indeed have the hardest job in Cub Scouting.

We had a Committee Chair who led the meetings.  We had a treasurer and advancement chair.  We didn't fill the other pack committee roles.  What I think I found is that our committee meeting really was a pack leadership meeting - probably 50% pack committee and 50% Cubmaster/den leader meeting.  We didn't really ask them to do a lot extra, but they were generally involved in all the decisions about what was going on.

4 hours ago, jamskinner said:

You can act however you want.  So can I.

  We actually agree on the inevitability of scouts going coed.  I just don't think it is a good idea and will continue to say so.

I'm not going to continue the point.  I'm not trying to stifle your freedom of expression.

I do understand the fundamental disagreement you have with co-ed Scouting.

In our troop we had a period of some "storming" within the adult leadership a while back.  At one point one of the ASMs called me up and said something to the effect of: "There are precious few of us trying to keep the troop going.  As leaders, we're all in this boat together.  At some point, we've got to stop fighting with each other and focus on bringing the program to the boys."

14 minutes ago, The Latin Scot said:

Ugh, this is all getting absurd. They wouldn't dare force co-ed Troops here though. Nor would they insist that CO's which charter all-boy units also charter girl units as well. That would instantly alienate the entire LDS Church, which forms a HUGE part of the BSA population. My hope is that the Church can exercise enough clout to protect smaller conservative bodies who still want to run only the traditional all-male BSA model, but don't have a voice large enough to be heard. If other units want to bring in girls, FINE, but that is where the Church's line is going to be drawn, and I can't imagine National would dare challenge a demographic as large as the Church's by forcing girls on its volunteers who don't want to follow the new model. 

Right - they're more savvy than that.  

They may clean up some deployment issues and may even allow true coed for those that want it.  But, I can't imagine they'd go any further than they are now.

44 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

As I stated, I am willing to give it a try. However I am not willing to go camping with girls unless a female SM,  or a female ASM over 21 years of age, is also in attendance. i do not beleive that calling a camp out a "family camp out" with girls' dads in attendance would be YPT2 compliant. Not going to put myself into a position where an accusation can ruin my life as it did to a friend of mine when one "Scout" accused her of making a pass at him because she caught him being a peeping Tom at the female shower area. Despite a criminal investigation clearing her, her reputation was destroyed in the community, and she was permanently placed in the Ineligible Volunteer Files.

Thanks!  The scouts will definitly benefit from that.  I'm 100% with you that you do it by the book.  

5 minutes ago, jamskinner said:

The problem I have is you are not respecting others opinions. You don't have to agree with them, but when you say

"Instead of fearing that girls are going to ruining Boy Scouting, work with the girls to create really strong co-ed troops." you are assigning a motive of fear to people and telling people to align themselves to how you feel.  As far a moving on go ahead.  I am certainly unable to stop you from doing that.

The basis of my position is that coed scouting is inevitable.  I'm suggesting that you put your fears aside and support the program you've supported for many years.  Instead of giving up, help these kids succeed.

How would you have me act differently?

2 hours ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Same here, especially since there is a demand to go full blown coed from some of the adults in my troop. When having a discussion about needing female Scouters on campouts , the response had been "turn it into a family camp out" if a female Scouter cannot go. Told my boys that I will not go camping  with the "linked troops" without a female Scouter present.

 

 

My challenge would be to give it a year after you go coed.  During that time, embrace the coed dynamic and work to make it great.  Your experience is the best protection against a watered down program.  

If after a year it's too weird, retire gracefully if you want.