ParkMan

I agree @WonderBoy.  You've captured nicely what I've found.

I definitely find we need to think about succession planning.  We have a few ASMs who are newer and are learning the ropes.  Some eventually get more active, some not.  But, when we don't have those folks in the wings and someone leaves, we have to scramble.

I used to convert less active ASMs to Committee Members.  But, as I learned about Troop operations, I realized how important a strong Committee is.  So, I started really focusing on building up the committee.  Coming out of that - I only register Committee Members as those people who want to be Committee Members.  

So, we register folks for whatever position their heart desires.  We try to then encourage them to get active.  It's probably not ideal, but it seems to work.

We're starting to experiment with the Unit Scouter Reserve position.  The idea is to point those people to it that want to register, but not take training or take on a role.  I'm not sure if it will fly - but we'll see.

@Kdl Welcome!!!

Thanks for the dedication to your den.  The scouts will definitely benefit from it.

That's very fortunate to say the least.  Most dens are luck to have a den leader and an assistant.  Now saying that one has to be a female is going to make things harder.

I'm not too concerned about the troop.  We have several female ASMs in the troop today - so this doesn't seem like a ptoblem.

8 hours ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Canceling once is fine, and understandable. Heck we canceled a trip 2 hours before leaving. One Scouter having a back injury a week before the trip dropped it down to 2 Scouters. Then at the last minute one Scouter has to bail due to emergency surgery.

But I can tell you that canceling a trip because you do not have female Scouter for the girls will tick off the boys. They will resent the girls and the female Scouter who doesn't go on the trip.

I admit the committee, and other Scouters need to recruit enough female Scouters,  but until then it can be challenging.

My point is that once a unit goes co-ed, we have to stop thinking about it as a boys group and a girl group - it's one unit - pack, troop, or crew.  If the unit cannot line up sufficient adult leadership for an event, then the event doesn't happen.

In the short term, for the 11-17 group this shouldn't be an issue.  If you have truly a truly separate boys troop & girls troop, then it's just a question of each troop having sufficient leadership.  But, if you go the separate troops on paper only route, then it's of course harder.

17 hours ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

It's a no win situation that some units will be facing.

If you cancel for everyone. you get boys fed up with the girls because it is negatively impacting them, and some may quit. And as you pointed out, if you mention can't getting enough mom's to camp, it's inflammatory.

I think saying - we can't camp because we don't have enough female leaders is fine.  That's not inflammatory - just reality.  Saying - we can't camp because we have to bring the girls and can't find enough moms to go with them - that's inflammatory.  Subtle difference I know.

14 hours ago, David CO said:

...and maybe they should think about adult leader availability before going co-ed.

 

Agree fully - a unit can't have it both ways.  We'll admit girls, but not deal with the impact of having girls.  If you admit girls, you unit has to be prepared for a big push to get female supervision on outings.  

14 hours ago, David CO said:

No surprise there.

 

I think you mean that as a criticism, but I'll take it.  I just think that as volunteers we've got to own finding the solutions to our own unit's problems. If you accept girls in to your troop - you have to be prepared for what the means.  But, you can extend that to whatever.  Not enough volunteers, then come up with a plan to fix it.  Not enough scouts, then focus on recruiting.  etc.

Hi all - back from a busier than expected work trip.  I was reading over answers to my question of what would you change.  Thanks for that.  I read them all and picked up on a few that strike me as very good things we could do:

On 4/9/2018 at 2:27 PM, Eagledad said:

OK, we found that at least 40% of total pack adult effort is directed to making their Tiger program successful. My polling, and national membership numbers, concluded that Webelos crossing over into the troop program is directly related to adult burnout.

Barry

That's an interesting statistic.  If your pack is spending that much energy on the Tiger program I can see why burnout is a problem.  When I was a Cub leader, we spent about the same energy on Tiger's as any other level - so I'm surprised to see others with a different experience.

On 4/10/2018 at 11:48 AM, Eagle94-A1 said:

.

2) Less Focus on Eagle/Advancement. Yes I'm an Eagle. But Eagle is not everything in Scouting. I have seen folks whose parents are pushing their sons to get it, even if the son has no interest. I've seen parents do shortcuts and "pencilwhipping" to get their sons to Eagle. I've seen parents know more about their sons' Eagle projects than the sons do.

 

3) Get rid of the "One and Done" mentality in training. Last time I did ITOLS, they wanted folks to hand out paper rank badges for just observing and doing the skills one time. get back to 'master the skills" and " the badge represents what the Scout CAN do, not what he has done."

 

Yes - I'd agree with there.  I'd think #2 woudl work if you had something to replace advancment with.  i.e., focus less on advancement - but more on outdoor activities.

I like what I've heard some other countries doing where leader training is much more of a program - multiple classes over time.  Basic training + IOLS + Wood Badge is not enough.

On 4/12/2018 at 10:25 AM, Eagle94-A1 said:

.

5) make the Webelos Program less Cub Scout and more Boy Scout. I am seeing so many ill prepared Webelos crossing over, then leaving. I do not know why this is happening, whether the current training is poor, or people do not care and want to continue doing things the way they arr comfortable with. But I am seeing those packs that continue to treat their Webelos as Cub Scouts, and not preparing them for Boy Scouts by increasing standards and upping the ante so to speak as the having the most new Scouts quitting.

I agree with #5 here.  Yes - have a clear difference between Cub Scouts & Webelos.  Make it fun and fresh again.

These all strike me as things that would change the makeup of scouting enough to either attract or retain more scouts and to also make it easier to keep quality volunteers around.  It would strike me that National mandating these could make them happen.  I also wonder if these are the kinds of thing that need to happen first at the district level?  

7 hours ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

I admit I have not taken YPT2 yet. But from reading hte Cub literature on YP, anytime a female is present you MUST have a registered female over 21 in attendance.  I will restate the question, do you send the girls home form the meeting, send everyone home, or ignore the rules.

Apparently the consensus on meeting is ignore the rule.

I'll rephrase 2 and 3

2) What if you cannot get a registered female over 21 to go on a weekend camp out, do you cancel the trip for everyone, cancel the trip just for the girls, or ignore the rules/

3) What if you cannot get a registered female over 21 to stay the entire week of summer camp, cancel for everyone, cancel just the girls, talk tot he camp to see if they can help?

3A) what happens if you have a week long trek and cannot get a registered female over 21 to go, cancel for everyone, cancel just the girls, or ignore the rules?

So, if I read this right - the scenario is: you've got a unit (pack, troop, crew, whatever) that is co-ed, have male and female scouts that want to attend whatever event, but don't have sufficient female leadership for the girls to attend.

To me, this is easy - you cancel the event for all. 

If you've got a co-ed unit, you don't have boy events and girl events.  The group does things together.  The minute you start saying "the boys can go because we have enough dads, but the girls cannot because we don't have enough moms", you've not longer got a unified unit.  To me that's way worse than canceling an event.

Further, you don't say - "we can't go because we don't have enough moms for the girls".  That's inflamatory.  You simply say - "we don't have sufficient adult leadership to hold the event.

I've heard of folks trying to register as merit badge counsellors to circumvent the fee.  Would like to see an official policy from national on what "registered" means

43 minutes ago, ItsBrian said:

I agree. The year after I crossed over, all the good committee members, den leaders, etc. had moved on since their child went to Boy Scouts. I was a den chief around two years later and now they do not visit any troops, they go straight into the packs troop. It’s a shame, we only have around 12 scouts and 3-4 are about to get Eagle which means there is only around 2-3 years left of 25% of the Troop.

I'm getting off topic, but...

50% of recruiting is pack outreach.  Troops need to have an organized, active outreach program to packs.  We have an event in the fall, event in the spring, visit dens, provide den chiefs, and will help packs however we can.  My belief is that Scouting is a continuum.  It's not that our feeder pack owes it to us to send their scouts to the troop - but that a feeder pack relationship allows us to concentrate our efforts on that pack.

If you're in a troop that isn't doing this and you're shrinking, then I would strongly encourage you to pull together the PLC and figure out how to start.

BTW - the other 50% is a distinguishing program.  What is it that makes your troop special?

I'm not blaming units, but that is where to problems are felt:

- declining unit membership

- difficulty in finding adult volunteers

- misapplication of the program

- higher attrition

The way scouting is setup today we have three distinct levels: national, councils, units

Given that structure, what would you have national do (or stop doing) so that we see:

- unit membership increase

- adult volunteer increase

- well applied, fun programs

- decrease in attrition

In our area about 75% of CORs have both a pack and a troop.  It's the most common model here.

I encourage Scouts to shop troops - but it has limited success.  Most of the time scouts are more influenced by their den leader than anything else.  

I agree with your themes here.  But what you describe sounds more like a unit/district problem.

How would you want national to help with that?

But isn't a lot of what's wrong in Scouting a problem at the unit and district level? Not enough boys, not enough adults, boring programs, disorganized unit.

How does national fix that?

We'd have this happen in our pack from time to time.  We'd usually just setup a "free to a good home" table and let scouts claim them.  For us, it was usually just campout patches - so no big deal about just handing those out.

Welcome to the forum @Cyclone.   Wonderful to have you here.  I'm glad you decided to join!

I have a tremendous amount of respect for the wisdom and experience you have.  I am in awe of your Scouting accomplishments.  

Scouting today is fundamentally the same program it has always been.  The youth we serve have changed far more than the program has.  Even the introduction of girls is a smaller change than the changes in boys over the last 100 years.

The BSA needs leaders with your depth of experience to guide us as we go forward.  Some of that leadership needs to remind us of the fundamentals inherent in Scouting.  Some of that leadership needs to be in looking at the challenges facing the program today and helping to devise solutions.

2 hours ago, Pselb said:

@Eagle1993

It's called Fuzzy Logic.  Scoop up a handful of sand.  You now have a "handful of sand".  Take off a grain.  Do you still have a "handful of sand"?  Deep doing that and at what point does it NOT become a "handful of sand"?  If the Boy Scouts keep making changes at what point is it no longer BOY Scouts of America?  From what is being discussed on the forum the question becomes more and more relevant. 

I see it a bit differently.  

The BSA is not defined by what it once was.  It is defined by what it is now.  We can all debate if the BSA has lost it's way.  But it is what it is.  We can choose to mourn the passing of what was or to figure out how to make the best way forward.

While I think it's very good material for every direct contact leader to know, I groan at yet another course for leaders to have to take.  I almost wish that the BSA would find an equivalent amount of material to trim from the new online leader training.  I think there are currently 17 courses for position specific, 3 for YPT, and now this to be an ASM.

 @Antelope16-2 Welcome to the forum!  Congrats on being asked to staff!  When I staffed, I found that I learned as much, if not more, from being a staffer than a participant.  It was a truly wonderful experience.  Enjoy.

Commissioners have one of the most important jobs in Scouting.  The magic of Scouting happens in our packs, troops, and crews.  The simple fact that most scout leaders are parents means that unit leadership regularly changes.  Commissioners bring tremendous value to the scouts we serve be sharing their knowledge and wisdom.  Strong commissioners are an important part of developing strong units.

Can you recruit others to the charge?  Get others in your circle to attend, help them see the opportunities, and encourage them to take it on.

58 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

For me personally, one thing more annoying than a distracted person distracting the event is the guy up front stopping the flow of the event to enforce rules he's just making up in the moment. The behavior is rude to many of us, but not others. A lot young people find this behavior acceptable. Some general guidelines should have been given at the beginning of the ceremony. I taught the scouts to either handle these things personally and quietly without distracting the rest of the group, or endure it and learn a lesson for the next time.

Now that's just my personal pet peeve. I understand it's not everyone's style.

Barry

 

Concur.  If you have an event like a COH with outside guests, set the expectation at the start of the meeting.  There are lots of ceremonies that I go to where someone says:

"This is an important event, please don't use your cell phone during the ceremony.  If you absolutely need to take a call, please step outside"

42 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

Yes, and I understand that generalities often make a lot of sense and sound good. But they don't tell the whole story. What also needs to be added is that creating and maintaining a troop program that challenges all scouts at all ages is a lot of work. Adults have to be on their toes making sure they learn more than the scouts so that they don't find themselves getting in the scouts way. I made a lot more bad decisions than good on my road to learning how to be a good scout leader. Humility is a requirement for adults building a quality program. It's a lot of work, but the results make it worth the effort.

Barry

I don't doubt it can work. 

My question is a bit different - is the average troop running a quality program that can continue to engage older scouts?  Or, put differently - is the program of the BSA to hard for the majority of packs and troops to implement.

We have examples where the program can and does work well.  Those packs and troops grow.  Yet, we hear about declining numbers nationwide.  Where is the disconnect? 

41 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

I wasn't focusing so much on applications of the program in this discussion. Someone else started a thread on fun pack meetings, so I won't go there.

My main disappointment with the Cub program is the weight of responsibility National has pushed on the adults for five years. Experts say the average volunteer for any volunteer organization will give about two years of their service before loosing interest. This of course doesn't include the rare volunteer with the passion to give a lot more, which is most of us on the forum.

Anyway, the Cub program is FIVE YEARS LONG. See the problem? Most volunteers are burned out after two years, so their motivation and enthusiasm has dropped. They are ready to stand back and watch for a while. The best solution for keeping the program fun is to replace the burned out volunteer with a fresh volunteer. But there aren't enough parent resources to recruit fresh volunteers. Parents willing to be volunteers likely already did it. The result in about 50% (or more) cases is a boring program for the boys. And what the boys experience now is what they expect for the future. Which is why the crossover rate of Webelos joining Troops is around 50%.

SO! What does National do! Add another year (lions) to the program of course. Another hole in the hull.

Ah, but there is a fix to this hole. Tap into a new resource (girls), that fixes the problem.

Barry

Both valid points.
- length of Cub Scouts - yes - 5-6 years is too long for Cub Scouts.
- adult burnout - yes, true as well.

If I look at what I feel as a volunteer, it's essentially a push to work harder and find more volunteers to help.  I feel like the demands of the program itself require me to work harder and harder.

What is national to do about those things?  While I suppose that national could drop lions & tigers, that doesn't seem likely.  It strikes me that national only has three things they can do:
1) change the program - perhaps shorten it and make it less ambitious.  Or maybe split Cub Scouts into two three year sections.
2) provide better training and materials on how to implement the program - make it easier for me as an adult to volunteer.
3) pressure councils to develop better support teams to give unit leaders more program help.

@EagledadI'm sure that's correct.

So, why do we have boring pack programs?  I always felt my pack's program was kinda dull.  But, as much as I tried to search, I couldn't find a recipe book of "do this and it will be fun."

In my area, we don't see that much.  There is some push by parents for our current Scouts to make Eagle, but I can't remember hearing from a lot of scouts who say "my parents made me join".

I think the general premise is correct though.  Years ago, scouting was more novel and unique.  It was fun to camp every month with your friends.  It was fun to build some pinewood derby cars.  It was fun to learn how to build a fire.  Today, those things are still fun - but not for 5-6 years.

I still think a big step would be more program differentiation at the different levels.  Don't make Cub Scouts 6 years.  Make it two separate 3 year programs.  If you really want to keep the boys together in a single Lions to Webelos pack - that's fine.  But, create the program in a way that when they get to Bears or Webelos, things change - a lot.  Same with Boy Scouts.  Again - if you want a 11-17 troop - fine.  But do something so that the program changes enough at 14/15 that it is fresh and exciting again.

The country changes every 10-20 years.  It's quite different than it was in 1957.

The biggest difference between them and now is how we think of organizations like the BSA.  Then, our parents and grand parents would have worked hard to make the organizations work.  Parents would have pushed their kids to make Scouting work.  Today, Scouting is one of many activities vying for attention.