Eagle94-A1

A bunch of mixed feeling on this one.

I can see why being anonymous is important. I know folks who reported stuff to the council, and they become persona non grata. I had that happen to me when I reported an alcohol in camp problem. Dealing with camp staff was one thing, but dealing with the council professional staff was a completely different situation.

But I also know it can be abused. As I posted elsewhere, a good friend was falsely accused of propositioning a Scout to save his own skin because he was being a peeping Tom.

On 6/21/2024 at 11:36 AM, OaklandAndy said:

What makes an area/community eligible to participate in the ScoutReach program? I'm sure there is some type of income cap for the area, county, or something like that. 

If there are any national requirements, I do not know about them. Back in the late 1990s, there were no national requirements that I was told about, I and I started 2 ScoutReach units in my district, and a friend of mine was SM for three or four in the early 2000s.

1 hour ago, Tron said:

If you're running a 12 month program as prescribed you can easily add these adventures and provide the learning experience for the scouts.

That is the thing, most packs still use a 9 month cycle based upon the school year. In all my years in Scouting, in multiple councils, only 1 pack had a 12 month program, and even then it was modified: instead of weekly meeting, it was biweekly fun activities to have Cubs earn the Summertime Award. In fact the entire reason why that award was created was to give an incentive for packs to remain active in some way over the summer.

This is what happens when educators take over the program.  BP said it best:

                           "Boys can see adventure in a dirty old duck puddle, and if the Scoutmaster is a boys’ man he can see it too."

                           “See things from the boy's point of view.”

                        "A boy is not a sitting-down animal."

                        "A fisherman does not bait his hook with food he likes. He uses food the fish likes. So with boys."

We need folks writing advancement  requirements who can see things through a kid's eye, remembering the excitement and adventures of their youth. We need folks writing advancement  requirements who realize the importance of experimental learning, as opposed to formal learning.  We need folks writing advancement  requirements that understand that some folks, especially boys, learn by doing. We need folks writing advancement  requirements that understand that failure is a learning method, probably one of the best. We need folks writing advancement  requirements that understand giving responsibility to youth is a way to help them learn and grow.

But most importantly We need folks writing advancement  requirement that understand that we cannot be all things to all people because "The open-air is the real objective of Scouting and the key to its success."

(sorry for some bolding, cannot undo it despite several attempts.)

Reading your post, and thinking how National will be "simplifying" the Scouts BSA program, It's as if multiple voices in my head are saying

2 hours ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

To help the organization survive in a state that they want (instead of looking for ways to change it for the better), BSA professionals expel dissenters.

Although dated, here is a blog which elaborates on this: (not a Daily KOS fan, in general, but I do read stuff there to learn how others think...)

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2006/3/4/191709/-Supressing-Dissent-in-Boy-Scouts-a-model-for-the-GOP

From the writing:

"The combination of lap dog boards and control of senior and middle volunteer management positions give the pros an immensely powerful position from which to block reform (and protect their own positions).  It will take a grass roots rebellion or a determined legal attack at the top to actually reform the system nationally.  Small determined groups with strong ethics and strong stomachs can achieve local results but, unless the tide shifts nationally, the system always tries to return to the old status quo."

Sadly I know one of the SEs mentioned in the article. He threatened a volunteer's son with not getting Eagle if the volunteer didn't do what he was told.  And I have seen first hand volunteers removed for questioning SEs.

On 5/22/2024 at 3:32 PM, Cburkhardt said:

What is it about the BSA that has allowed it to survive?

1. Legacy members and Volunteers. 

I grew up in the Scouting program, and the SM and ASMs were the "father figures" I looked up and sought advice from. My fellow Scouts were like brothers to me. In essence Scouting was my surrogate family. I continued on as a Scouter even when I had no kids, because I NEEDED to give back. There was no way I could ever repay my SM and ASMs for every thing they did for me. Closest I could do is give back.

When I did have kids, I wanted them to have some of the same experiences and joys that I had as a Scout, and if possible even better ones.

But the program is not the same as it was. The program has been watered down. Instead of adventure, the focus is now "Getting Eagle." The old standard of advancement was " Master the skills" and "The badge represents what a Scout CAN DO (emphasis added), not what he has done." Now the standard is "A badge recognizes what a Scout has done toward achieving the primary goal of personal growth. " Look at the number "academic" requirements in MBs, as well as purely academic MBs there are these days.  And with National saying they will be "Simplifiying" the Scouts BSA program, there are a lot of concerns, including from BSA "cheerleaders" like Mike Walton about watering down the program further.

And let's not forget the bad treatment of longtime volunteers by not only pros, but also newer volunteers. I have given examples in other posts of the mistreatment of experienced Scouters by pros. But go on some of any social media website, including this one, and you will have newer volunteers denigrating and insulting experienced volunteers and their concerns. I know I have been told in person and online that "you don't know what you are talking about," "(citation from G2SS, G2Am, etc) is wrong you can do..." and 'Scouting needs to change with the times."

So a lot of volunteers , especially on district and council levels, are throwing in the towel. And trust me, it is EXTREMELY hard to replace them with folks witht he same knowledge, skills, abilities, time, and treasure.

2. Nostalgia.

When you hear the terms "Scout," "Eagle", etc folks get images of the Norman Rockwell paintings and  Follow Me, Boys.  Scouting over the years has done so much good, that it has a positive image.

Sadly the paper-pushing is slowly changing that adventure into another classroom.

Worse, the dark side of Scouting is making an appearance, and folks are applying today's standards to activities 40+ years ago. Falsifying membership has slowly been coming out. The biggest obviously is the CSA Scandal. Whether you agree it is BSA's fault or not, it has hurt BSA.

5 minutes ago, DannyG said:

Our troop has allowed it on extenuating circumstances (ie. parent drops off kid at camp late and leaves) but it doesn't always work for everyone. Sometimes the troop is camping for fun nearby, so we can make it work out . Sometimes the troop is out on a trek in the wilderness and you wouldn't be able to find us as easily. But I think we have to realize this gap exists on the older side of the program, not just Cubs.  I see both sides.

During COVID, we had no choice but to allow families to pick up and drop off. Since everything was within 90 minutes (usually 45 minutes or less, but that one day trip) we had a few issues, but they were workable.

HOWEVER post COVID  had a major trip, 6+ hours away. family was going to be in the area prior to us and afterwards, so the decision to let us meet and drop off and pick up was made. That was a mistake. We got to the meet up point about 30 minutes late due to an accident on the highway. Family was upset that we were late. When asked when to expect arrival for pick up, we told them one time, but also said we could get back earlier, depending upon the backpacking pace. We said we would call them if we got back earlier.  We did get back 2 hours earlier than anticipated, and called them. Because of the remoteness of the area cell service was limited and we could not get them. We waited and attempted to get them multiple times. The parents show up an hour after we told them. Yes we waited for 3 hours for the parents to show up. We could have been almost halfway to home. The Scouts were not happy.

10 hours ago, BetterWithCheddar said:

We might consider making the program more inviting by offering additional day camps or 1-night camping options. I find this preferable to an indoor program (or no program).

Wise man once said, "OUTING is three-fourths of ScOUTING." ( The author of the 2010's edition misquoted him, he obviously didn't do the math).

Scouting and sports are two completely separate programs, with completely different goals and objectives.

So jealous.

2 minutes ago, HashTagScouts said:

Also factor in impact to unit planning. If your council is different than ours, God bless. I can look at our council calendar today for August-December, and there are no dates for camporee listed. I can see OA weekend dates and NYLT weekend dates. Our unit is not unlike many around us, that planning meeting with PLC will take place before the end of July. If we don't have event dates to consider, then those events are not going to be considered. We will give deflection to not plan our weekend for one of the months there is an OA weekend for those who wish to attend that, but we aren't going to plan around both months. 

Well, at least your council isn't cancelling events with little to no forewarning. 3 events have been canceled so far this year.

4 hours ago, Tron said:

You are correct, and it's funny how this unit has higher costs because they are going out of council. By refusing to participate in the council of registry they have become a cash cow for the neighboring council. Man it sure is thrifty when that unit pays all those out-of-council fees in neighboring councils. 

Depends. Are the units getting value from the out of council fees? If paying an extra $25-$35 gives the Scouts a better experience, yes it is worth it.  I can tell you I have been to some camps that until major improvements in staffing occur, we will not go there. 

Scouting Adventure should start in 4th grade. more later

WOW.  

I wish that would have been the case for friends of mine. One friend of mine had the cable line across the street from his house. His house was less than 100 feet from the poles they were using, and they would not connect him.

Worse was the friend who, lived on a corner lot. because his physical address was on a street not in their service area, they would not connect him to the network despite the cable going through his side yard, and connecting neighbors on the street his address was not on.

10 minutes ago, OaklandAndy said:

Our camp upgraded it's wifi to help leaders who need to work. While it's only accessible from "base camp" and not at the campsites.... 

You are lucky. There are some places that are so remote, big telecom does not provide internet services. Only option is satellite, which is extremely pricey. Sadly out state legislators nixed local government agencies from forming their own after big telecom complained about losing customers in the two areas that had it.

2 hours ago, BetterWithCheddar said:

Your camps have a McDonald's nearby !?!? 😛

I'm jealous. Our favorite council camp is way the heck out there. It's delightful ... until you need something.

35-40 minutes away is the McDonald.

38 minutes ago, DannyG said:

They don't put in anything close to 40 hours that week, but they are able to knock out some work hours on WiFi.

Your camps have wifi? LOL

Seriously, wifi in the past has been a serious concern. There is one camp the troop likes that has extremely pour internet, to the point where their office staff will take turns driving into town to use the local McDonald's wifi.

I have found that pros come and go, usually on a yearly basis. And most folks stay around until their kids age out the movement. There has always been a cadre of long time volunteers, whose knowledge. skills, abilities, time, and treasure could be relied upon to keep things running. I have been in multiple councils in my 42 years of Scouting. And that fact is one of the few constants.

1 hour ago, Jameson76 said:

They expect Cubs part 2 and we scare them.  Programming for 11 year olds means the youth likely leave in a year or 2.  Need to challenge and inspire.

Yeah the parents are not the ones who are ready, especially in those packs that wait until 5th grade to begin transitioning.

Problem since circa 2008 when Cub Scout Leader Specific came out, IMHO.  The Webelos DL section is almost cut and pasted from CSDL section. And now that training is modular and online, many folks think they are trained for all levels because they got most of the modules completed already, and they have been a DL for 1-4 years already. WDLs are continuing with CSs at 4th and 5th Webelos level. And now national will be making it worse with the new program. I expect retention to drop further, as older Cub leaders, or folks trained by them,  will no longer be allowed to begin the transition process in 4th grade as it was intended since circa 1990s.

Why I really miss the in person, all day Cub Scout Leader Basic Training as it went over all the CS levels, as well as Pack level roles.

7 minutes ago, AwakeEnergyScouter said:

The damage that the traditional male gender role causes is certainly very real and a problem to solve for sure. The suffering is so unnecessary. I'm surprised to hear that people would divorce someone for needing support - you know, scratch that, I've heard of people divorcing their spouses after a cancer diagnosis. Some people are just... Not considerate. But unlike cancer, divorcing someone for breaking gender roles has a pattern to it that can be more systematically addressed than being people being shallow.

You may be quite surprised at the number of divorces because the man is no longer able to support his family, or gets critically ill and the wife is unwilling to support him. And you would be surprised at the number of men, who bust their butts supporting their wives in higher education, only to divorce them once they got what they want. It is a lot more common than you think

7 minutes ago, AwakeEnergyScouter said:

This issue has indeed been around forever, and I knew about it when I was a scout. Feminism was a big topic of discussion in middle and especially high school. There was a lot of mutual exploring of how traditional gender roles impact girls and boys, men and women. How we had felt in various situations, what we wished would have been the situation instead. Obviously, the general gist always ended up being that we resolved to consciously support other people who didn't want to be imprisoned by their gender role, and used each other's experiences to understand better what to say and do to let people know that we didn't really care if they didn't conform to their gender role. Tangential but related, I heard a lot of complaints from my male friends and my BF about the constant pecking order checking and re-checking. Sounds exhausting! 

Sadly women say they want men who break gender norms, but in actuality do not. This is based on my personal experience, observations, and from reading research conducted on the topic. 

7 minutes ago, AwakeEnergyScouter said:

But I was a little surprised to see this, because one pattern of behavior I've seen men take literally for decades to help themselves survive while working to slowly weaken the grip of gender roles is to seek out female friends and co-workers... And patrolmates. My husband had groomswomen at our wedding, because this was exactly what he did. Being a girl with STEM and outdoorsy interests, I've been a talk-about-your-feelings friend for many a male friend. So to me, gender-integrated patrols is the obvious solution to the problem you bring up. You can have the situation of a few girls being together in that close way, and a male patrolmate can just join the atmosphere if he wants. Some did, some didn't. Their choice. Similarly, I was able to see that I can also rise to the 'provider' role, I can be the strong caretaker if that's what's needed. We girls all did in part because of the nature of scouting activities but probably also because it's less taboo for girls to act like boys than vice versa. The female gender role has weakened more than the male role.

I do not believe gender integrated patrol will solve the problem. Based upon my experiences and observations not only in Scouts, but in multiple environments, when teenage boys get together by themselves, they act one way. As soon as a girl is in the picture, there is the competition to get her attention.

regarding the guys you had the talks about feeling with, if you were single, would you date any of them?

7 minutes ago, AwakeEnergyScouter said:

The phenomenon that I never saw was boys my age saying "I need time away from girls in my own boys-only space". I didn't see any boys-only friend groups past third grade. Sometimes refugees from the Bosnian war would drive around town in all-male groups, and it was notable that they never, ever had any girls with them. Had we been saying sus like the alpha kids, we definitely would have called it sus. 

Probably because boys won't admit it to girls. Again when girls are around, the focus is on getting their attention.

Another factor, membership losses are that bad that it affects the ratio.

4 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

Just saw our council's numbers... from a year ago at this time, we are down almost 8% of our youth numbers, and almost 12% of our adult numbers.

The patient is very ill.

And, I noted something curious... our registered adult to youth ratio? 1 : 1.8

We have one registered adult for every 1.8 youth in the council...  I am cogitating on that one for a while.

Thoughts?

A few reasons why this may be the case, but I do not know.

1. MBCs are now a paid  position, so they are now included

2. the 18-21 crowd, the 'Adult participants" are now being included

3. A lot of folks are getting tired of the constant increases in prices.

14 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

Another random thought...

When we offer the option of fully coed Troops, will there be an ongoing need for Venturing?

Maybe that is why the Venturing Director made that announcement. To quote Han Solo:

The OA has lost a lot of meaning in my neck of the woods. And now that everybody who wants in gets in. None of my Scouts are interested. In the past 6 years, only 1 person wanted in, and he was pushed by his dad who was an Arrowman in his youth. He did the Ordeal, and went to a meeting, and it was so bad he never went again.

As for 2 of my sons, despite telling the OA election team they were not interested in joining the OA and remove their names from the ballot, their names remained and they did get elected. But never did their Ordeal. The reason they told me was that the OA is no longer a true honor society like it was in my day. There was a Call out where several Scouts my boys and I knew got elected and eventually became Arrowman, All of us knew one of them was a serious problem, especially camping, and wondered how he got elected. When they asked their friends in that Scout's troop how he got elected, they were told everyone gets in, its no big deal.

What really hurt me was that when I was the chapter advisor, and we were rebuilding out chapter and lodge's AIA program, my oldest helped me with the drum and drumsticks. he heard my stories, and couldn't wait to get in. But by the time he became eligible,  talking to his friends who were in said it was no big deal and he lost all interest.

14 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

As a Troop, we have seen massive losses before crossover, so we are looking to pilot running the 5th grade AOL program.  Our plan is to hold AOL meetings concurrently with Troop Meetings had have our Troop Guide and a ASM run the den meeting.   Basically take over for the den leaders.  Not sure if it will work, but we figured it can't be worse than what has been happening the last 3 years.

With respect, I would start with the 4th grade Webelos. I was around in the old 3 year Cub Scout program, when you had 9-12 months to earn both Webelos and AOL and cross over. One year was not enough time to prepare for the differences in programs.

When the 18-24 month program came out in the 1990s, it was based upon research, and the training of the time emphasized the differences between the two programs and how Webelos needed to start transition in 4th grade. When the training got updated circa 2009, that information was not emphasized as much as the older training.  IMHO separating all the DL trainings into 3 different courses, was a mistake as folks will take 1 training, and assume Tigers, Wolves and Bears, and Webelos are all the same. Then going online where there is no human interaction AND folks can just play the training and do other stuff further exacerbates the issue.