ParkMan

The reoccurring theme I see here is the atrophying of our district committees.  I imagine this extends to the commissioner staffs.  

I'm guessing that there probably wasn't ever a time when there was a nation full of well formed district committees devoid of politics and personalities.  But, I am guessing that something happened 20 years ago that has led to a slow erosion of them.  What that is I don't know.  I'm not entirely sure it matters.

The point is that we're at this point where district committees are struggling.  That leads to what I see,in my community - irregular troop program quality, poor recruiting, poor community events, etc.  Everyone is focused on their own unit.

I'm still of the belief that the way out of this is through us volunteers building back up those district committees and the unit commissioner staffs.  They are still the most logical way to focus on strengthening Scouting across a larger community.  Create good community events.  Increase the ability of packs, troops, and crews to recruit kids and grow.  Improve the quality of training and as a result the delivery of program.

I'm guessing that's how it worked in the early days of Scouting when the program grew rapidly.

My recommendation is for us volunteers to get re-engaged at the district level.  If you really want to improve tbe,program in your area, this is where to do it. Get involved with district program, camping, training, or membership.  Sure, skip the finance part.

The BSA is supposed to be volunteer led, professionally guided.  I'd worry less about what the council employees are saying and just do the right thing for the units in your area.  Maybe we use this forum as a place to brainstorm how to do that?

Sounds pretty weird.  Makes me wonder if something happened that resulted in it.

Given the tight budgets, can't imagine they're doing it on a whim.

I saw those performance problems too.  It was pretty slow.  Took me about 90 minutes.

I thought it was a very good improvement over the old materials.  It was much more matter of fact and focused on the problems at hand.  It really felt like the authors were saying - "we're taking this seriously".

I'm not sure the answer.  Again, I'm fine firing the council staff and trying your approach.  We struggle for district volunteers now, so I'm skeptical.  But let's try it.

It just really saddens me the culture that exists where everything council or professional is bad.  I think it's sad to treat a group of folks who have chosen to dedicate their careers to the movement like this.

29 minutes ago, TAHAWK said:

The bulk of services - like 99% - is supplied by volunteers.  The money is raised by council to meet council payroll.  Our new SE tells us  that the model that most of the council employee time being devoted to raising funds for council is going to change to spending time on unit service.   

Alternative?  Follow the model of the rest of the world and spend lot's less on employees.  I once met the entire paid staff of a Canadian "district" that served more youth than my council - all four of them.  Windsor District.  Our council employed twenty-seven at the time with a couple of vacancies, spending 93% of its income on salaries and benefits..

In our council, we don't get 99% of the services from volunteers.  Yes, volunteers handle things like training, camporees, day camp, etc.  But, anything having to do with registration, Eagle paperwork, most Council Camp upkeep, and Summer Camp is done by professionals.  

I'd be game for that - let's cut the staff by 75%.  Here's my guess how that goes...

Our councils sound like they are similar in size.  We're a council of about  got about 26 professional staff at any given time.  Looking over the staff list, it looks like it breaks down as:
- Scout Executive
- 1 council registrar
- 2 office staff
- 2 finance and accounting
- 2 camp staff
- 2 in program support
- 12 in field service
- 4 in development

A 75% reduction would mean a staff of 24 becomes a staff of 6.5.  I'll round up to 7 people.  That becomes:
- Scout Executive
- 1 registrar/accountant/office staff
- 1 camp staff
- 1 in program support
- 3 in field service

I think we''d see a very different level of professional support from the council as a result.  I suspect our relationship with the council would become more like our relationship with National.  I'm just guessing, but I doubt we'd ever see a DE.  The DEs will all be focused on things like creating new units.  With no more development team, I think the days of free camping at council camps would end.  We might even see a council registration fee. 

The flip side, is that I think districts might actually flourish.  Today, our DE is really the glue that makes our district work.  Remove the DE and the district would struggle for a while.  Troops would have to begin to work together in a more concerted way if they wanted stuff like camporees to still happen.  Some would fail, but some would succeed.  That might actually be a bonus.

These are just my guesses.  But, again, I'd be willing to try and see.
 

Welcome to Scouting.  Thank you for volunteering!

It sounds like you're enjoying Scouting and will have a tremendous impact on the Scouts in your den.  In my experience, Packs all have a certain culture.  Coming in and trying to change things can result in lots of extra work for those other volunteers around you.  That's when leaders get frustrated.

As a new leader, my recommendation would be to attend the meetings and learn. During that initial time, attend the meetings and see what goes on.  You will very quickly go from being the new leader to one of the experienced folks in the room. Having been there will be very helpful in a few months when the next group arrives.

Having a bigger impact on the pack is easy once you figure out what the Cubmaster is trying to do.  Figure out his goals and how you can align yours with the CM's.

That's correct.  In most councils the registration fee goes to National.  The local council gets none of it.

The funding model for local councils is funny.  They provide the bulk of services to local units, but then generally raise money outside of the troops to support that.  I can only gather that there is a historical reason for this.

I don't love what this leads to.  Yes, I wish the council never asked for money. But, short of every family spending another $150 to pay for the council, I'm not sure what else to do.

Both the BSA and GSUSA have seen significant membership declines.  Some of this is undoubtably societal.

I understand that some packs have a Cubmaster/den leader program  meeting and a separate committee meeting.  The committee is just business talk.  

Unless you're a huge pack, I like the combined model myself.

In our pack, we always wanted the den leaders to attend.  So much of what we covered involved them.  Pack meeting plans, campout plans, join Scouting plans, advancement, etc.  These always had some impact on, and needed the involvement of, the den leaders.  So, we were glad to have them.

If your pack is organized in a way that you cover this in a different forum, then it may be less important.

Thanks for all the thoughts in response to my last set of questions on this.  My basic thinking going in was that there would be things we can make sure we do in a troop's program that will put the boys in situations that develop these traits.  I do see the other line of thinking - that it's the myriad interactions and decisions a scout makes in the context of simply being in the program that do that.  That's something for me to think about.

BTW - I hope that no one misunderstands my comments about the mom's being involved.  I'm very appreciative for what they do and am glad to have them.  Some of my absolutely favorite Scouters are moms.  If anything, it was just thinking through the idea that mom's in the program have an impact on this topic too.  It just got me to wondering if perhaps there were some things we'd stopped doing along the way that maybe we didn't even realize.

I'm so very sorry to hear your frustration.  I fully understand being frustrated and burned out.  I've had such a frustrating experience in my role in the troop.  It wasn't until recently when I decided to walk away from the troop and focus my Scouting energy other places that I've even begun to get some excitement back.

I'm also sorry to hear about your experience with money & the council.  I've got other non-profit volunteer experience and one thing I've learned is that money is always important.  A council consists of full time paid employees - folks who don't have a job if the FOS presentations don't come in.  Summer camps close when the money doesn't come in.  This isn't a for profit entity, but they have to pay the bills.  The scouts in my troop pay $0 every year to the council.  Yet, we have a DE, a professional staff, and a camp to use for free.  When we helped organize a camporee a few years a go, the adults were incensed the $3 a scout was going to be council for overhead.

Your council does sound a lot more political than mine.  Our council leaves the district alone.  Short of someone really awful, I cannot imagine the council pushing back on any volunteer appointment.  They are just  happy that anyone is showing up to do the district jobs I think.  Yeah - they don't provide much in the way of training - but I'm OK with that.  We adjust.

Again - sorry to hear about your really awful experience.  Scouting needs all the dedicated volunteers it can find.  Driving folks off is a shame.

17 minutes ago, NJCubScouter said:

It is my understanding that, at least in the current early-adopter program, the pack leaders are making an express commitment to the council to keep the boy dens separate from the girl dens.  Is that incorrect?

Assuming that is the case, I would question the comment that the pack wouldn't have to pretend.  The pack would be making a direct promise not to do something, and then do it anyway.

Update:  Well, here is the agreement, at least in my council: https://ppcbsa.org/wp-content/uploads/SUS-2018-Family-Scouting-unit-application-final.pdf.   I suppose it isn't as crystal-clear as I thought, but it does imply that the girls are in their own den.  I think I have seen a document that is more explicit than this, but I guess this is what the pack and den leaders actually sign.

I'd not seen the form.  That is very specific.

Interesting to see all the hoops for and early adopter program that heads things off by 6 months or so.

1 minute ago, Tampa Turtle said:

But, but isn't that what the opposition said would happen and we were assured that there would be policies to keep that sort of thing from happening? Shocked. 

They should've just done it from the start.  Take your licks once and be over it.

2 minutes ago, fred johnson said:

Not den.  Rank.  During recharter you make sure everyone is in the correct rank.  BSA has no idea who's in which den.

I think we agree.  So how you structure the kids at a particular rank is not known to the BSA.  A pack doesn't even have to pretend.  Just find a male & female to run a den and give the kids the same den number.  

BTW - not suggesting that a scout leader should be dishonest or anything.  Just fully expecting that operational realities will trump the theory.

5 minutes ago, fred johnson said:

Agreed.  It's a forced unneeded and problematic idea.  Now if you have enough boys and girls in a rank to keep them separate and they want to do that, fine.  Absolutely fine.  But if you don't have the numbers and don't have the volunteers, how the heck would you make it work.  Forcing it would just diminish the scouting experience.  

I'm sure it's just a matter of time.  My guess is the most everyone will ignore it anyways.  If I recall correctly, there's reporting of who is in which den during recharter - so it seems easy to forget about.

Thanks for the feedback so far.  This is helpful.

To provide some more context.  I've got no idea what's going to happen with our troop in a year or two.  Will we be co-ed, will we be boys only, no idea.  I'm not concerned with either outcome as we'll adjust and run the best program we can.  When I read the original article, my thought was "yep, makes sense."  I've got a son and two daughters.  I don't really raise them differently - that all get the same feedback and opportunities from me.  I teach my daughters how to use power tools and my bring my son to the ballet.  But, I can clearly see there is a biological component to their behavior and development.  I'd be lying if I said there was not.  So, as a parent, I walk a line.  I encourage their natural traits, but provide every opportunity to cross-train (so to speak).

Again, when I read the article, I felt like "yep, this makes sense".  However, it's written like so many other articles of this type - it's a lot of identification of the problem, some hand wringing about how we're going off the rails as a society, and then very little about what to do about it.  So, I'm stuck.

As a Scouter, I only have to guide a program for boys today.  So, I don't have to worry about how my program today addresses the traits and needs of girls yet.  Again, that may change someday, but it isn't my concern right now.  So, I feel like I'm the position to do something about the masculinity question.

We do what you describe Tampa Turtle.  Yet, I also notice that many of our most active volunteers are moms.  In fact, just about every committee position is a mother.  Dads tend to be ASMs.  But, most of them are pretty busy and are not all that active.  So, I'm wondering if we're really all that masculine as a unit.  It's honestly the moms that are pushing the troop to do things.  They don't want to micromanage the boys - but they want to see the boys doing stuff.  The moms are honestly way more into boy led than the dads.  If our troop was run by the dads alone, we'd show up in the parking lot on a Friday afternoon and wing every camping trip.  Honestly, the adults in our troop are a lot like the way that folks describe many venture crews.  The moms get stuff done.  The dads just kinda show up.

So, this brings me back to the basic question.  if we wanted to make sure we're promoting our boy's masculine traits, just what would you do?  The teamwork idea makes a lot of sense to me.  Another I've thought of is fostering competition that drives teamwork.  Another is pushing the boys to take more leadership roles on.

2 minutes ago, Tampa Turtle said:

Talk to your committee and CO about your intent to stay a 'Boys Only' Troop; if they agree contact your Council in writing and see how they respond.  YMMV

I think I'm looking for something a more in terms of program today.  We've been a troop for 25+ years.  I've got no idea if we're teaching these guys to be masculine or not. 

That's what I'm trying to put my finger on.  Just what kinds of things should we do in our program to make sure we're teaching these young men to be masculine?

I'm still somewhat lost on the specifics here.  I like facts & figures - probably why I'm a CC. 

I still have a "boys only" Boy Scout troop. I've got an opportunity to focus on teaching these guys to be masculine.  What things should we be doing to help ensure that?

I'm not aware of a policy that would be against it.  Giving a gift card would be appropriate in my book.  It's not really any different than the pack buying him something.

Myself - I'd prefer a gift that said something about Scouting and my time in the pack.  A card signed by everyone, something special special to your pack, or something from my time as Cubmaster.  Maybe a picture of me from my first pack meeting or camping trip.  Or perhaps something practical I'll use everyday.  Years ago someone gave me a ridiculous key chain.  I use it everyday and think back fondly to when it was presented.

I think I'd sit around with some leaders and brainstorm about memorable stories about the Cubmaster.  See if anything neat pops out of that.

I agree that these are the things we do today.  My bigger point though is that I think the movement needs to regroup a bit.  We're I in charge of things, I'd do three things:

- clarify the program.  There needs to be much clearer guidance on how to implement much of this stuff.  There should not be arguments on wherther the scouts or the adults should buy tents.  This kind of thing ought to be more clearly spec'd out.

- improve the mechanics.  Just about every troop has boring troop meetings.  It's great that some troop has this figured out. It needs to get captured, distilled, and rolled out.  Not the hokey program notes kinds stuff.  But a real, simple recipe that even I cannot mess us.

- improve training for volunteers.  I'm not talking about the "so you're a new ASM class".  There needs to be a real continuing education program for leaders.

I'm optimistic.

In our district, there is a very uneven distribution of scouts in troop.  A few large troops (50+) and many smaller (~20) troops.  The packs are the same way.  What that tells me is that the scouts are out there and some packs & troops are better at attracting them than others.

What I think is going on is that adult leaders are really struggling to figure out how to deliver a good program.  The days of hanging out a "Scouts welcome" sign and getting a full pack or troop are gone.  The proliferation of other activities has taken care of that.  So, to have a successful unit today, you've got to run a good program.

When I read threads like this one, I struggle with things like "scouting is supposed to be a challenge, and an adventure", "Scouting is a culture that challenges the masculinity of young men", etc. I've got absolutely no idea what that means.  What are you supposed to do to challenge their masculinity? 

I've been a Committee Chair for four years now.  I cannot count how many discussions we've had about "boy led", "patrol method", etc...  Folks who have been doing this for over 10-20 years see those concepts and implement then differently.  I was sitting at the Troop meeting the other night listening to some of our more active parents talking about how their kids hate troop meetings and are tired of canceled camping trips because the boys can't get them together.  We're arguably one of the most successful troops in the district and one of the better ones in the council. We can't figure this stuff out.  On top that, training is so basic no-one goes.  Roundtable covers superfluous topics, so no-one goes.

I've come to the conclusion that our problem isn't the boys or their parents, it's that we are getting so bogged down in stuff that we're forgetting how to run a scout program.  Now that competition for their attention is tougher, it's more important that ever to be on our game.  But, we're not.

2 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

Has any boy of the scout age ever felt they needed more character?

Scouting is an adult program designed to develop boys into men of character (A game with a purpose).

The attraction for boys is the adventure. The exhilaration of experiencing the independence for making responsible decisions is what keeps them in the program after the exhilaration of adventure becomes balanced with normality.

Barry

Well said.  This captures my thoughts.

This is why I think it helps for us as adults to remember this balance.  We can't make it all game or all purpose.  But, we orchestrate the game to achieve the purpose.

In the context of this discussion, I'm struck that no-where in the BSA literature does it say "turn boys into men".  We talk about boys developing character, but don't talk about what that means.  What does character mean for young men today?  So, as we orchastrate that game, how would we do it differently for boys than for girls?

I don't think there is anything in the G2SS that says a scout has to tent with his parents.  Just that the only adults he can tent with are his own parents.

I think he's fine to say in the cabin with the other boys.

I tend to take a little more optimistic view of the councils.  I've gotten to know our DE and some of the council staff.  Yes, they have goals for new units started, but they also have goals for membership.  A successful unit like this one is gold to a DE and the council.  It helps make membership numbers, it helps make FOS numbers, etc  My gut tells me that this isn't the "Council" so much as it is the DE & maybe Director of Field Service.  

I'm thinking they are trying to figure out how to make a successful pack more successful.  They probably fear that the unit is getting too big to be sustainable under the current leadership structure.  Let's face it - many units struggle to get enough volunteers, so taking a big pack and then asking them to add 25% more volunteers to make it work is a big ask.  Easier to just try a split where it's more easily managed by a smaller group.  Also, if all goes well, you get two strong smaller packs which are well poised for future growth.

Me - I'd sit down with the core leadership team and figure out an organization that's sustainable for 120 cubs.  120 cubs is two boy dens and a girl den at each level.  That's very realistic for a large pack.  Define the jobs you need filled.  Don't worry about who is going to do the jobs you need done them, just start by figuring out what they are.  Once you have those defined, you can go out and recruit for them.  It may take a couple of years to fill them, but at least you've got a goal then.