1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said:

BSA will not go Ch 7.  Based on their most recent cash burn they can last over a year without looking at Ch7.  Even after that year they could get more money from councils, etc.  Ch 7 is utter disaster.  BSA trademarks and program materials would be sold.  All properties sold. There are legal arguments that would be pursued to pull in all council assets.  Then CO and LCs would be sued.  BSA would likely not survive.  Ch 7 was a threat to get approval of a plan. 

If it does happen, who knows the outcome for claimants financially.  I think it would be bad for everyone excluding those who simply want BSA to die as they would likely get their wish. 

Properties would become a significant issue. National properties would be a matter of their own (and with outstanding liabilities on them, can't see them being sold for anything other than a loss). Many Councils could be in real bad straits, as many properties today are not outright owned by Councils, they are held in trusts that grant managerial control/usage to Councils. If the Council has to file Ch. 7, those are not outright assets for them, and exactly what happens to some of them could be long costly legal cases trying to resolve the "ownership issue".  

28 minutes ago, Ojoman said:

Today it is not unusual for a Council Scout Exec to be compensated (benefits & salary) at a quarter of a million or more. A really great SE is worth that and more. A board that invests that much in a council exec should expect performance. I have worked for both great council execs and for really bad ones. Councils that consistently lose membership, merge districts, cut staff and run in the red or constantly raise less money year after year probably have a leadership problem. Councils that hold their own in difficult times and grow and rise to the challenges probably have solid leadership. The field execs generally work longer hours than their compensation would reflect and where there is poor leadership they tend to 'get out' and go where they will be properly compensated and appreciated. There will always be those in the profession that are highly competent and committed to the programs and mission and councils are blessed to have them at any level. Scouting needs solid, competent and dedicated professionals. Support the good and great ones and don't tolerate incompetent ones. 

It's a system that has just made a "good ole' boy" network the only game in town. Truly, BSA should take a solid look at itself and ask how inclusive it really is, and its dedication to that, at the number of females it has in the SE ranks. Don't see a whole lot on the horizon that is going to increase those numbers in the short term either. What we have is a bunch of folks who have four year degrees (but, in just about any major) with little to no work experience outside of BSA, who have managed to stick it out for 10-15 years and find themselves in positions to be "CEO". Yes, we have some good people who have used their experiences well and have been/can be successful with the position, but we also have quite a few that would be hard pressed to get a job in anything higher than lower-management in corporate America.

Holding them accountable- or, not tolerate them- is a whole other issue. How many of you can raise your hand and say your Council is transparent on when the E-board meets? Get any minutes from those meetings? Heck, get anything but disdain and conflict if you ask any questions of them? Our COR has never received anything from Council, so the idea that they ask every CO to have a voice is completely not true. Our current Council President has sent two emails total since the start of 2021. Predecessor had one FB live fireside chat in two years. Other than participating in that FB live fireside, the SE has sent exactly zero communications of their own in over three years. There should be plenty of motivation for these folks to be transparent and demonstrate that they are being good stewards for the sake of youth, but sadly there just is not enough of that happening in practice, and not nearly enough controls to hold them to account (other than packing your rucksack and moving on and let your feet do the talking- if they are even listening to that).

41 minutes ago, MacBrave said:

A link to the PDF that was used to present this new "Adventure Fee" to CAC volunteers at last week's district roundtables is here:https://crossroadsbsa.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/PP.pdf?vgo_ee=PEyTUlc0mr504drzrLyWRWVLY1pGRWb2%2B0FTX4hhTec%3D

 

And as a long time volunteer in the Crossroads of America Council at both the Pack and Troop level I do not approve of this fee.

 

I do think we are going to see more and more councils that were not charging a separate liability insurance fee to units will start to. Spirit of Adventure Council charges $100/year on top of Nationals chartering fee.

Discount on "monthly specials" only at Crossroads Outfitters? OK. Not on everything, just what would probably otherwise have been a sale price on a monthly item.

What I would be wary of is the discount on activities/rentals. The councils here that put in the annual fee for "Adventure Card" just jacked prices up that same year for events/rentals, so the net benefit was really not much. And, considering that many of those things are booked by the unit and not the individual, it meant that the unit had to buy at least one adult that could handle the bookings an "Adventure Card" membership to get the discount for the unit.

2 hours ago, cmd said:

I'd like more information about the "adventure fee".  That seems a pretty typical cost for most of our council run events.  A little bit lower.  I wonder if they're trying to improve attendance at their council events by making people pay for them whether or not they go.  If that was meant to cover a full year's activities, it wouldn't be a bad price.  If you still need to pay 5 dollars for this and 50 for that all year long, that's a different matter.  Bigger concern to me than the price is the idea that the council might be planning the annual calendar instead of the youth. 

Raising the new scout fee to $100 is insane.  Recruiting is already hard enough. Is there a limit on how many times someone can attend something before joining? $100 is going to push away all the "we'll give it a try" families before they have a chance to see whether it's a fit for them.   To bring this back around to cub scouts... you can have a solid troop with only one 6th grader or no 9th graders, or whatever.  At the cub level, we NEED to recruit a critical mass of new scouts each year or we end up with dens that fail, then we get interested families with two kids, but only have a den for one.  Please don't create additional obstacles to recruitment!

More context of that fee would be nice. Especially helpful to understand how it bypasses the current edict on annual activity fees that Councils can impose in lieu of annual FoS demands. Trend-wise here in New England that councils moved to that model years ago and asses each youth an annual activity fee- varies a bit on what that fee is, and what it gets the youth/unit. Mayflower Council charges $36, which gets the unit free tent camping at council camps and adults get no-cost training (BALOO and IOLS). Spirit of Adventure Council charges $48, Narragansett Council charge $54 for Cubs/Scouts BSA, which basically gives a discount on Council activities including summer camp. 

If CAC is charging this as a monthly fee, then are they are intending to have a council run activity each month of the year? Imagine that units would just have to question why run their own activity, and not just attend the council activity. I could see packs doing that in lieu of a monthly pack meeting more than I could troops for the most part, but at the end of the day, it seems a total program killer all-around. If you are in a council where it is an hour drive to a council camp, how many families could you see making that trek every month? For Cubs for the most part you are talking day events. Now try and get those families to commit to a monthly den outing and a monthly pack outing on top of the council outing. I don't see that being successful, and just building resentment to everyone that drives membership down in the long run.

I I only have them discuss their thoughts on 6(b) 1 and 2. 3-7 I leave them to discuss with their parents, and have the parent sign that they completed the discussions. I ask them after they've had their family meetings if they want to share any general observations about 6-7, but the others I avoid- especially on the family finances, not really my place to know all that is going on there.

9 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

 My CC who said the comments is a 20 veteran who has been to Philmont and WB with no kids in the program anymore.

 

YOB TOVU MAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Non of my Scouts could afford that.

Yup. Council is charging $2,900 for Jambo.  

2 hours ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

@InquisitiveScouter,

 

That was the 2022 price. Here are the 2023 prices. And note they are subject to change. That is over $100 more than what we are paying.

 

 

Camps in New England are all at about$500/wk early bird pricing for 2023.

23 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

So, to be clear, are you saying that Joey Scout, who is elected by his unit and goes through the Ordeal (having paid the fee and his membership dues in the local Lodge for the year), and becomes an Arrowman, that he ceases to be an Arrowman when his dues lapse next year for the local Lodge?

He ceases to be an active Arrowman, that is the terminology I would use. 

31 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

Although I would withdraw my parent example based on this...

Any registered member of BSA who is an Arrowman may wear his insignia.  He is a member of the Order, regardless of lodge affiliation.

I'm aware of what Capp said, also aware of the blowback those comments got. It undermined the purpose of the Lodge and forcing Lodges to send $$$ to National, when we could just create our own "camp society" and not operate under the name of Lodge. And, as the moment about NOAC illustrates, National doesn't actually stay in keeping to the Capp comments, as you can't attend a National event (NOAC, or even Arrow Corp, nor OAHA) without paying dues, and you have to do that through a Lodge.

23 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Actually prior to the early 1990s, some lodges did offer a lifetime membership in the OA, similar to the NESA Lifetime membership. Do not know when lifetime memberships got banned by national, but they in fact had them. Met a few folks who had them.

And ended, as not compatible with YP standards. OA functions are Scouting functions, and that was the clarity that we're told over and over.

3 hours ago, Mrjeff said:

Ok, its a pretty simple train to follow:  attend the ordeal, complete the ordeal, remain active by paying dues, attend events, wear Sash.  Or attend the ordeal, complete the ordeal, don't remain active by not paying dues, don't attend lodge events, no Sash. Obviously I did read the post and perhaps you should read the mountains of literature available explaining the purpose and mission of the OA.   In fact it's now impossible to register for an event like NOAC unless you are an active member of your lodge.  Should I continue?

1 hour ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

LOL

Yes, you should continue after reading the following:

Let's start with the Purpose and Mission of the OA: https://oa-bsa.org/about/mission-purpose

Mission & Purpose

 

For over 100 years, the Order of the Arrow (OA) has recognized Scouts and Scouters who best exemplify the Scout Oath and Law in their daily lives.  This recognition provides encouragement for others to live these ideals as well.  Arrowmen are known for maintaining camping traditions and spirit, promoting year-round and long term resident camping, and providing cheerful service to others.  OA service, activities, adventures, and training for youth and adults are models of quality leadership development and programming that enrich and help to extend Scouting to America's youth.

Mission

The mission of the Order of the Arrow is to fulfill its purpose as an integral part of the Boy Scouts of America through positive youth leadership under the guidance of selected capable adults.

Purpose

As Scouting’s National Honor Society, our purpose is to:

• Recognize those who best exemplify the Scout Oath and Law in their daily lives and through that recognition cause others to conduct themselves in a way that warrants similar recognition.
• Promote camping, responsible outdoor adventure, and environmental stewardship as essential components of every Scout’s experience, in the unit, year-round, and in summer camp.
• Develop leaders with the willingness, character, spirit and ability to advance the activities of their units, our Brotherhood, Scouting, and ultimately our nation.
• Crystallize the Scout habit of helpfulness into a life purpose of leadership in cheerful service to others.

 Please show me ANY statement in the above that membership requires a Scout to do anything with the Lodge after completing his induction. 😜 

Here's another reference:  https://oa-bsa.org/article/ask-chairman-can-members-who-are-not-dues-paid-wear-lodge-flap

Please note, "An Order of the Arrow member can always wear their sash and the Universal Arrow Ribbon once they have completed the induction. However, wearing a lodge flap indicates that their current dues are paid in the specific lodge that the flap represents. So, if the individual has not paid their dues, they should remove the flap from their uniform."

If you actually bothered to read the "mountains of literature" with intellectual honesty, you could only come to the conclusion that you are mistaken.

And I agree with your statement about NOAC, but that is irrelevant.  I made absolutely no pronouncements about NOAC or any other lodge, section, or National events like that.

OA business includes unit OA elections, where any Arrowman may wear his sash, regardless of his current lodge affiliation.

OA events at Summer Camp would also fit the bill.  OA days, OA Ice Cream Socials, Call-outs at the campfire, etc. etc. etc.  An Arrowman may wear his sash for those events, regardless of his current lodge affiliation.

Parents who are Arrowmen, and no longer affiliated with BSA, but observing the induction of their Scout at an Ordeal may wear their sash while attending, regardless of their current lodge affiliation.

You must make a distinction between being an Arrowman and being a lodge member.  They are two separate statuses.  Once inducted, you are ALWAYS a member of the Order of the Arrow.  Once you let your dues lapse in a lodge, you are no longer a "member in good standing", but retain your status as an Arrowman.  The honor was given by an Arrowman's unit, not by the Lodge.

Please continue, because you said "several" of my original assertions were incorrect.  You have yet to name any that were incorrect.

I'll leave you with two thoughts that apply in the situation:

"A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."

"When an honest man discovers he is mistaken, he will either cease to be mistaken or cease to be honest."

 

The conversation a Lodge Adviser has to have every now and then... Like the BSA, there is no such thing as lifetime membership in the OA. You are a member so long as you pay your membership dues. So no, it isn't exactly appropriate that someone continue to wear a sash if they are not paying their membership dues, the same as it is not appropriate to continue to wear a BSA uniform if you are not paying your annual BSA membership fee. True that an individual only goes through Ordeal once, but one has a continuing effort to be considered a member to wear the sash.

The handbook states "“Only currently registered members of the Boy Scouts of America and the Order may wear the insignia of the Order of the Arrow.” To be a member, you have to pay your Lodge dues, which includes $5.00 that goes to National for your OA membership dues.

BSA professionals can also be MBCs. 

MBC renewal process is in the spring, for every MBC. Either your Council handles (or District, if that is what your Council designates).

26 minutes ago, Mrjeff said:

In order for a youth to be elected they must have Scoutmaster approval.  The election team really has no idea who is eligible and they rely on the list provided by the SM.  This approval or disapproval MUST be exercised before the election and its really that simple. 

Agreed.

If a SM feels that a youth is not necessarily living up to the Scout Oath or Scout Law demonstrably, it's a good time to have a SMC with that youth and explain why they aren't going to get on the ballot. The very idea of trying to deny a youth AFTER they have been elected by their troop pretty much is public shaming. Having that conference with the youth, maybe you'd learn some things that are going on in that kids life, and it may just sway your opinion of them that being in the OA just might be an additional outlet for the kid to right themselves. I've seen enough Scouts flourish in leadership positions in OA that just didn't jive well with the youth in their troops (and, after seeing some of the members of their troop within the OA, I get why). 

Agree with @qwaze on not just automatically giving the Scout rank badge. For us, the very first campout that the AoL crossovers attend with the troop, they can breeze through "reviewing" all of the Scout requirements and most will have no issue with being ready that night to have their SMC and be awarded the rank on Sunday morning. And that is appropriate. For the small number that struggle with a requirement or two, they are not massive issues and the kid can still have their SMC and get encouraged to come to the meting that week and 99.9% of the time they will receive their award that night. We aren't solving some massive crisis of "holding kids up on advancement" if BSA makes this change.

1 hour ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Kinda. Prior to  1989, Wolfs= 3rd grade, Bears = 4th, and Webelos=5th. Tigers was added in August 1982 officially, and was for 2nd graders. In 1989, they dropped Tigers to 1st, Wolfs to  2nd, Bears to 3rd,  and Webelos became an 18-24 month program to better transition Cubs and their families to Scouts. sadly the WDL training has regressed, and Webelos are not beginning the transition until 5th grade again, and in some cases with 6 months OR LESS (emphasis).

My idea

1.  Make Lions and Tigers a separate program. 

2. Revise Webelos requirements to include SCOUTING ADVENTURE as a Webelos requirement instead of a AOL requirement. I have seen some dens not work on that requirement until a month before Crossover. And in my experience, the earlier the transition begins, the better prepared the Webelos are.

3. BRING BACK LIVE TRAINING FOR WEBELOS DLs AND REEMPHASIZE TRANSITION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ( emphasis for you, Screaming at the top of my longs at National). Transition from Cubs to Scouts is hard, especially for parents. The earlier they get onboard, the better it is. Also If the Cubs are prepared, they will stay longer. In prior posts I've talked about how one den that began transition 1 month before Cross Over  had all but 2 Scouts leave within 2 years, whiel the den that transitioned in 4th grade had 100% at the 3 year mark, and 80% currently.

Year-over-year, RT has had the January topic as the "Webelos transition". Not the right headline, with AoL being a rank, so right there the whole topic goes off the rails. Also spends way too much time talking about the more "physical" attributes like the crossover ceremony, rather than hammering home to the Packs that if they haven't been direct to parents that there is an actual difference between Cubs and Scouts BSA, they've missed the boat. I've gone hoarse trying to explain this to the Cub RT commissioner. 

We lost the the narrative a long time ago IMO that Scouts BSA is not just a seamless transition from Cubs, and that the Cub program was started to give younger kiddos a formal environment to dabble in some of the same activities as their older siblings. it has become so structured (too structured) and advancement/awards/accolade driven, that no one should be surprised that parents have the same expectation that it will be the same in Scouts BSA. I've never had a parent whose kid was not in Cubs give pushback that "my kid is not advancing quickly enough" or "when can you give my kid his BoR". I've only ever had this from parents whose kid was in Cubs. One of the most significant factors of why we won't let a parent be registered as anything other than Troop Committee for the first year after their kid crosses over, so they can observe how different it is from that hands-on experience of Cubmaster/DL to ASM.    

Agree with @5thGenTexan that trying to get youth of today to accept a program from thirty years ago is only going to work in limited fashion, and we're at that level. 

Accessibility to all those outdoor fun activities is an area we need to focus on. In the northeast, pretty much every council now runs a "base camp" program to make shooting/pioneering/orienteering and such available at least once a month, so that units/patrols/individuals can do them. Once a month may not be enough though. With all the other things kids/families have going on, the "once a month" opportunity may not fit their calendar (same for the troop program), which can make the youth lose interest real quick. We can lament the loss of patrol method, but if the fun factor isn't there, then we're cooked.

5 hours ago, yknot said:

I wouldn't draw too tight a relationship between some of those trends because over the past 25 years there have been a lot of other things at play including a more universal disenchantment with scouting. A portion of my family is in Scouts Canada, in some cases in both Scouts Canada and BSA, and when talking to them, the view is more nuanced. Scouts Canada has been impacted by the Francophone and anti Commonwealth movement in some provinces that eschews all things British. There is an indigenous movement, much higher profile than here, that eschews all things Colonial. And Canadians in general have been distancing themselves in public life from anything connected to religious institutions. It's been kind of a triple whammy for scouting, which in Canada is seen to be connected to all three. 

Another observation you can take from Scouts Canada- outdoor opportunities abound, and families don't necessarily need an outdoor focused organization to enjoy the outdoors. If we look at Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont, where there are numerous open spaces and outdoor opportunities abound, BSA numbers have been exceptional low. BSA policies that can hinder the outdoor experience do not help either. A childhood friend lives in Maine and was taking his daughter deer hunting when she was 9 years old. She wouldn't have been allowed to handle anything other than a BB gun in a BSA setting. Safety is obviously important, but the org has been bit dull at recognizing that an activity can get hollowed out the more you add restrictions, and the fun factor like Jameson mentions is gone..

29 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

A few things.

A. Queens Scout, now King's Scout, remained the top award and is given to Venturers/Explorers in the UK.

 

B According to the Churchill Plan all programs max age as a youth is 18. While there was major protest and one of the EXTREMELY few times BSA has listened to volunteers and they did not put it into effect in 2020, they did state that the age mandate can be reviewed in the future. 

I do think programs will take more of a look of other associations around the globe. Structurally speaking was more what i was getting after. I think we are headed to changes akin to what you see in other countries as well- as more retirements occur, BSA will more centralize operational aspects like recharters, etc. Councils will lose their "franchise" and there will be a more "service area" structure. They'll get out of the business of Councils being business entities in their own right. Initially, I think it will look a bit like the OA section strucure, but over a few more years will break down more like regions.

11 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

.... it could definitely go @Cburkhardtpath & I hope it does.  I just think National Leadership is going to have to improve how they lead the organization as we are still in financial peril.  Navigating the financial situation while addressing the needs/wants of millennial/gen z parents & gen alpha youth is going to be difficult.  I'm not convinced they have it in them.

The scuttlebutt in the pro ranks is that Mosby will be stepping down this year, and announcement will come this spring. I feel this is credible. The other thing I am hearing is that they anticipate that his replacement will once again be from outside the pro ranks, in favor of another person that has experience from the volunteer side, but preferably much younger. 

The rumor mill is that a more planned phase in of the CO-less model will be coming by the time of 2025 re-charters. CO model still an option, but the IH/COR would be expected to also be the Committee Chair as requirement, not optional (if COs want to be oversight to units, then they are going to have more management skin in the game as BSA takes increased liability shield from them I believe is the idea). 

I think BSA is headed more in the direction of Scouts Canada/Scouts UK. Eagle will cap as the Scout reaches age 17, and Venturing becomes older Scout program like Rovers age 17-21. Sea Scouts stays as is, a separate program.

22 minutes ago, MattR said:

Some of these problems are working themselves out on their own. In our district there are now two girls troops that have folded into ours. We now have the largest girls troop with 12 scouts. I'm not sure if that is great news or bad news. Anyway, having equal numbers of boys and girls right from the start was a pipe dream.

That also means a one stop activity for all the kids is also, partly, wishful thinking.

Also, since the GSUSA model works so well for cub aged scouts, why not use that? Form a neighborhood den, grow it till they advance to a troop and then disband it. It might help eliminate parent burnout.

In our town (and I heard similar from parent of one of our girls that lives in a neighboring town), the existing GSUSA units are not exactly the most welcoming to newbies. The council contact basically told parent they should go and start their own unit, which this is a single mom who really truly is going in ten different directions all the time, so being the unit leader was not what she was looking for.

20 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

I agree with qwazse, but I wonder how much of the enthusiasm was generated by passionate adults. I didn't get a comfortable feeling about the youth level of enthusiasm from this form. Of course this is an adult forum, but some of the adults seemed hell-bent and creating success stories. However, the Venturing Crews program does have some success with active girls.

Barry

No disagreement from me on that. Stated long ago, Spirit of Adventure Council was the source of the "metrics" BSA stated as the evaluation that all parts of their programs were a fit for girls the same as boys, and that there was a large interest for girls to participate. The outside consultant the BSA used to make that evaluation also lived here in MA. Girls from that Council involved in Venturing sat in focus groups. Never once did I ever hear an actual statistic, only generalities. 

However, all of that is now in the past. It is a reflection on the BSA today what happens today, and troops folding up after only a few years, not a great look. Can't undo the past, but going forward, I would like to see Councils use more discretion on units -including boy units. If you are trying to start a troop in a geo location where there are no other units within 30 miles, and only have 5 youth to start, OK. If you are trying to start a unit in a geo location that has multiple units within 30 miles, and you only have 5 youth, there should be a long pause to evaluate why it should happen. Stability is going to be necessary to win back confidence for some families/donors after the past few years of bankruptcy drama. 

59 minutes ago, qwazse said:

I'm not so sure why this is terrible. If you can't produce a program that girls enjoy and a CO loves to host, why should council bother?

Meanwhile, there are a lot of young (and young at heart) men who've benefited from that 60+ year-old troop. Some of them probably call their council to see what can be done to keep it from dissolving.

The bitter truth: it now rests squarely on the young women who've benefited from the program to promote it. If they conclude that they would have been better off with 100% of their time spent in GS/USA, their BSA4G troop will rightfully lose its foothold in the community.

Terrible if you have interest, and still cannot get anyone from your Council to make the effort to help. Sometimes it's just networking and finding someone who can assist with an intro to help to get a CO partnership. 

1 hour ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

 I do not know about other councils, but in my council the perceived attitude is you are on your own. Not only is there no support helping existing units that are struggling, but there is no support for creating a needed second girls' troop in my district.  There is a lot of interest for a girls troop in one section of my district, but instead of the pros helping start the unit, instead they send them to a units 45+ minutes away one way. It doesn't work like that.

Terrible. The struggle I find myself in with our units- people seem gung ho to try to move mountains to save the boys troop that has been around for 60+ years, but for the girls troop that doesn't have that longevity, its all shrugs.  

1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said:

I think you make a good point and I agree, most councils struggle with their current responsibilities.  

I started the 1st girls den in my council and my daughter was the 1st registered girl in Cub Scouts in my council.  It started with ~10 girls or so across several different grades.  The biggest group came from a GSUSA troop that folded.  Over time, GSUSA did a better job in my school with retaining Troops and girls decided to stay in GSUSA.  My daughter ended up dropping out of Cub Scouts in 4th grade when there were no remaining girls in the Pack.  She is happy hanging out with the boys, but also wants some girls present.  We attempted recruiting, but every girl interested in scouts went to GSUSA (my daughter did as well).

Similar story with our girl's troop.  We started strong with some very active girls.  However, it never really rose above 7 girls.  They were adament, they wanted to remain linked to the boy's troop ... but over time, more and more dropped out.  Most dropped out as they are very active with sports, rock climbing, dance, etc. and just didn't have time for scouts.  Some had similar comments to boys who leave ... scouts is becoming boring (they don't want any meetings, just go out hiking, camping & canoeing).  Perhaps if we had a 20+ girl Troop and the girls all had friends they would have stayed.  We are now down to 3 girls (including my daughter).  If we don't get more, the Troop will fold.

I've talked through my council and many girl units have similar stories.  Initial surge, then this decline.  I am interested in a council by council breakdown of girls in scouts as the story may not be consistent nationwide.

Personally, I would welcome the council coming into my town and setting up a dedicated girl Troop.  Grab the 3 girls from the 3-4 different girl troops in the area to form a 10-12 member troop & recruit to grow that.  I simply do not have time until I leave my current Troop ... which I won't do until my son ages out.

But ... I agree, that is a lot to but on councils, so I fear we will simply watch this limp forward.  GSUSA's dominance of recruiting K-5th grade girls will limit girls in packs and that is the main feed for girls in Scouts BSA.  If you don't change that somehow, I'm not sure this will succeed.

Hope for the best for you. I hope for those units that have been successful to this point they have continued success. I really hope that Councils at the least have real, practical conversations with the units that are limping along (packs and troops) to engage in productive decisions on what is best for the youth they have to be successful, and we aren't just "keeping units around" for the sake of a few $'s in the Council/National pocket (which often translates to an awful amount of $ and energy spent by the unit/parents to keep something going until it hits critical mass).