Eagle1993

The FB group is run by volunteers and they submitted questions to a National BSA member. That individual recorded answers (only the female CM/ACM answer was controversial). I think the admins were upset the video leaked as it means the group may see less direct answers from national. I didn’t see any evidence that National requested this. Note that the only info regarding requiring a female CM/ACM for Girl or coed Packs was on that video. There was a lot of pushback and so far there hasn’t been confirmation that is going to be official policy. I believe that is also the reason the admins don’t want videos floating around of National BSA members on policies they may be in flux (just guessing). We are waiting on an update that should be going to executives this week.

Speculation/at least partially - I believe this is being done to ensure separate SPL/ASPL/PL/APLs.

I would expect the same change that occurred when the Boys Club charter was updated when they changed to the Boys and Girls Club. From the Boys and Girls Club website - “To recognize the fact that girls are a part of our cause, the national organization's name was changed to Boys & Girls Clubs of America in 1990. Accordingly, Congress amended and renewed our charter.” However, I’m not sure Boy Scouts of America name would change. I think it could just be (possibly) one of the programs under BSA. Of course this is all speculation.

I have been closely following a FB page that seems to have reliable information. I don’t believe any naming for the girl Boy Scout program has been finalized (at least released to Councils); however they are close as the name is supposed to be announced at the NAM in May. Many high ranking BSA volunteers are supportive of simply using Scouts and Troop; however, they have been clear that there is no official name yet and they are not in the know. I won’t believe anything regarding a name until it is officially announced. Note there are some interesting updates... Linked Troops can have identical numbers. This came through some questions in a FAQ. Scoutnet will be able to tell is it is a girl or boy Troop, but again, linked Troops can have the same number. The new uniform went through reviews (there was a showing April 9 to a limited set of people). What I found interesting was this comment from a BSA National professional: “ Thank you for all the comments. Let me assure you that the uniforms that we are testing are for boys and girls. We are not planning different uniforms, however, we may have some additional options like skorts or capri options that are for girls - those are being tested.” There will be NO early adopter program for Troops. So info is slowly coming out but nothing official on the name.

Based on the skew of the comments my guess is that this article is linked through a right wing site (Drudge, Fox, Breitbart, CNS, etc.). If linked through a left wing site (Huffington Post, Daily Kos, MSNBC) the comments would also be negative but with the slant that the BSA is a nationalistic right wing organization who is attempting to undermine a progressive all girl organization. I take pleasure that I’m part of the one organization that Murdoch and Huffington despise. BSA is bringing our country back together!

BTW if National asks I still live in Alaska. Here is a recent picture.

Apparently some people shared the video (it leaked). Those individuals are now being tossed out of the FB group. The video wasn’t controversial it was simply stating some reasoning behind the June 11 date and clarity of leadership requirements.

The biggest complaint is that in that pitch you only need a YPT adult female. Most of the time that is easy as you simply have moms YPT and make sure one stays for meetings. Now for the full rollout we need female DL/ADL. So this is a change from the pitch above. The complaints are breaking down into: - this is a change from the EA program that comes as a surprise - you cannot have adult leaders serve in multiple roles adding to the burden of finding new leaders - inconsistent with how boys are treated I’m curious how National will respond.

Oh, I’ll add that people are losing their minds on the FB page right now. They turned comments off on the video and are waiting for responses to a number of questions. Biggest one is if a DL/ADL can also serve as CM/ACM.

This was not mentioned (either way) but I tend to agree with you that I don’t see this as a coming requirement. I think they should make this a requirement and can only speculate why they didn’t.

I’m a member of a Facebook group (Cub Scout Pack early adopters) and the National Director for Cub Scouts recorded a video answering some questions regarding the upcoming program. This info was sent to professionals this week. The group admins asked that the video not be shared but I didn’t see an issue sharing some of the key updates as this could be useful for other Packs.

Further info. For packs that have girl youth members, either the Cubmaster or Assistant Cubmaster must be female. In addition, each girl den must have a female Den Leader or Assistant Den Leader.

This info was creating a lot of stir on a Facebook page. As you may know, the EA program for Cub Scouts only required an adult YPT female to be present. Now for the official release that female must be a Den Leader or Assistant Den Leader. This is causing a bit of confusion (since it is a change in policy that is 5 months old). Notice the comment for Troops... follows a similar requirement (not surprising). Below is from a National Professional scouter... Would information in the form of an FAQ sent to Scout Executives this week qualify? The expectation is that SE's will be sharing this information in their councils. Quote: Q: Will dens of girls and troops of girls be required to have female leaders? A: Yes. In Cub Scouting, dens of girls will be required to have at least one registered female den leader or assistant den leader who is at least 21 years old. Troops of girls will be required to have at least one registered, female Scoutmaster or assistant Scoutmaster who is at least 21 years old.

One example I can see is if, in general, a group of girls may pick up one part of an adventure or MB more quickly but struggle with another part you may need to think of different techniques. I wouldn’t recommend changing requirements but I do agree as leaders we may see a broader set of learning styles going forward. I emphasize “in general” as I’m sure it is not 100% correlated with gender.

What specific changes do you think would be necessary for girls?

So far I have had to make minimal changes. One is to modify gender language on the fly. So in some cases an adventure would have me read something about “boys” and I would insert “girls” or “scouts”. The other is to be prepared with more adventure content. That could be due to the smaller den size or that the girls are a bit more focused at this age. The other area I have watched for is interactions between boys and girls. That will be a new dynamic but again shouldn’t require a change to the program. For the life of me I have no idea what else would have to change. I would be interested in specifics on what modification would be sought for girls.

Not that it matters but the same site shows pack and Troop patches are “chair”. You linked to the District Chairman patch.

That sounds correct. My patch is several years old and reads Pack Committee Chair

@Eagledad I don’t see the BSA ever negatively commenting directly about any other program. In fact, I’ve seen them in interviews stating positive things about 4H, GSUSA, etc. I agree they are adding girls to deal with declining membership but I don’t see them attacking other programs (at least publicly). I’m not arguing against your other points, and there are definite concerns that membership will still decline.

Materials will arrive in Scout Shops starting June 1 and girls can register in any family Pack starting June 11. Article has some info regarding working with your COs and preparing for the change. https://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2018/04/16/heres-when-and-how-you-can-start-welcoming-girls-into-your-cub-scout-pack/ Oh, and there is this minor change. Two Arrow of Light Adventure Trails will be renamed: Outdoorsman will become Outdoor Adventurer, and Sportsman will simply become Sports.

All organizations have a choice in how they respond to competitive threats. If you are confident in your program and see yourself as a market leader you rarely have to try and trash the competition and can simply emphasize your own brand. GSUSA is clearly not confident in their brand/product and must resort to attacking the BSA program. I certainly hope they are planning on focusing inward to see how they can retain and attract more girls to their program vs attempting to scare them away from the BSA. I’m not stating BSA is without flaws and I wish the organizations could work together but this continued line of attack from GSUSA won’t play well as soon as you see more and more girls in BSA. I think BSA should stay consistent... we have a great program that works for all youth. There is no need to modify the program for girls. In my small sample size, 7 girls joined my Pack who are also members of GSUSA and 5 are planning on dropping their GSUSA membership. So far my daughter is one of about 2 who plan to return to GSUSA and that is not firm. The Pack/Den model is really tough to compete with.... too much is put on the shoulders of each GSUSA Troop Leader.

Our council encouraged sibling participation in our activities for years. We were told to include sisters as well, the only thing they can’t do is attend summer camp and obtain official ranks. When I took over as CC this was communicated to me by my DE and CM... it went back many many years. We limited participation in some cases (PWD and overnights) but definitely allowed it in others (den meetings, hikes, etc).

Is that true? I know a Pack just rechartered this Jan 2018 with a brand new FOS charter org. Absolutely no pushback from Council. The hardest part is getting an official release from the existing charter.

I just did a quick search and found 6 Friends of Scouting corporations in my state. So it is definitely an option if you want to take on that work.

Many years ago several PTOs in my area dropped scouting units (due to BSA’s ban of gay scouts). Several formed “Friends of Scouts - Home Town” 501c3 Organizations. They then chartered Packs, Troops and Crews our of these. The benefit was self determination as the leaders of the scout units also were responsible for the CO. In our Pack/Troops case the CO founders were concerned about continunity as they would leave when their scouts left the program. So, several units left the FOS COs and found other organizations to take them on. It wasn’t a bad short term answer and my understanding is that you could created a broad FOS CO and cover all packs/Troops in your area (if all the PTOs want to drop them). I know a Pack nearby that currently working with other packs/Troops to form a combined CO due to lack of engagement from PTOs.