yknot

I think that's the nut of the funding problem. Councils have a hard time showing benefit to youth. All people see is what looks like bloated overhead.

I'm not so sure. Do you have any examples of Councils cutting fees? Most I know of either held fees or increased fees this year. I also haven't heard of any units refunding fees or offering discounts. Also, our Council is trying to do the right thing as far as staying afloat and holding onto a camp property, but that means charging more at a time when services are reduced.

I think I was talking more in terms of trying to market the increasing expenses to newer scouts and families. Great if you can access a huge pdf to parse through but I think Councils who want to recruit newer families need to work harder to be more transparent, i.e., act like other organizations and include a pie chart or some other breakdown prepared for you that shows you what you are getting for your investment. If 70% of the Council budget is going towards salaries then I think you have to spell out what those positions do to benefit scouts at the unit level.

This is something I just don't understand about scouting. Almost every other youth organization, other organizations, businesses, are waiving cancellation fees or discounting fees during Covid. For example, no sector has been hit harder than the arts/entertainment sector but I've gotten refunds for every single thing I had tickets to and couldn't get to because of Covid. I will say I have gotten some very nicely worded requests to eschew the refund and consider it a donation which I have sometimes done.

I think a lot of times most of us are also thinking Troop level where we have already been the boiled frog for several years. New parents coming into scouts aren't looking for transparency in terms of 'let me peruse through an inch thick budget'. Their version of transparency, or what they want to know is, 'how much of the money I give you is being spent on my kid' or in some way benefits them.

I think Council fees should replace FOS for current registrants. I think an FOS appeal could still be targeted to alumni if a Council has its records in order. I am concerned though that the Council fee might just become another bucket you are expected to pay into. Our Council instituted the maximum Council fee this year. We still had a pitch for FOS. We were still asked, though not required, to participate in popcorn sales. We had additional pitches for a Covid relief fund. Granted there was no hard sell for any of these things other than the new Council fee, but it has been a constant ask. One thing about instituting a Council fee instead of FOS is that I think you lose corporate matching funds for those who have that benefit.

I really like that idea. It would cut down on the repetitiveness and homework like components in the badges. I did something like this years ago in cubs for some of the Webelos pins where they duplicated what was covered in school. For Geologist, for example, there was already a class trip to a mineral mine. Since the entire Den attended, and den leaders went as chaperones, we counted that towards the pin. In scouts, the Cit in Community and Cit in Nation MBs are redundant and repetitive with school curriculum. They could easily be combined and allowing grades or a teacher sign off or attaching copies of tests that demonstrate the knowledge would make sense. I also like the idea of allowing more choice within broader content areas.

Flashback Friday: This is the weekend we would try to work on Pinewood Derby cars while trying to watch wildcard football games. Hope more scouts still get to do that in future.

Exactly. But this discussion arose because people were complaining about having to do things differently.

Certainly things still happen and schools are not perfect. My point though was that scouters who compare adult ratios at camp outs in the woods to academic and sports environments are not comparing apples to apples. There are far more adults around in day to day school settings; teachers and adults are not usually taking kids off into remote locations some distance from civilization; and there is a lot more surveillance on a typical school campus than there is in the woods or at a remote camp ground, especially now in the aftermath of some of these high profile school shooter events. It took a couple years, but post Sandy Hook, all the school districts in my area hardened security to the point where there are few places on campus that are not secured or surveilled.

Things have changed dramatically since 2012. Why? Sandy Hook. That shooting quickly and forever changed school security and surveillance measures. Other incidents since then have contributed but the environment is completely different now and forever will be.

That's true. But there are also plenty of nooks and crannies in the woods and behind the boulder or on campgrounds and no cameras at all. Plus in school or sports settings you've got 3 minutes to pass for class before someone notices you are missing or 5 minutes before a coach or gym teacher wonders why you are not out of the locker room or your parents are in the lot waiting for you. It's really not the same kind of risk environment. There are risks, yes, but they are not comparable to scouting.

I know scouters like to compare BSA to the school environment but there are some very significant differences. There are cameras everywhere today in the academic setting. No child is ever really "alone" with a teacher, coach or bus driver, because there are cameras in hallways, in classrooms, at sports facilities both inside and at the field houses, in offices, and on buses. It's a very different situation.

Well, if it's not resentment, then you've made it clear you don't like it. I understand the loss of not being able to free range our kids. I grew up that way. It's a better way to grow up. However, the reality is that that world is gone for reasons too numerous to list here. For scouters to try to hold onto that mentality now for this one particular aspect of troop management doesn't make any sense. It's hard to believe that it is really just that intolerable or outrageous to have enough adults on hand to maintain YPT in the event of an unanticipated event, especially when out with a larger group of scouts. It's not like scouts just did this for no reason. We've been a virtual supper buffet for child predators for decades.

BSA requires you to follow your CO's guidelines. United Methodist Church requires 2 adults per 13 youth; Catholic Church basically requires 2 per 8 youth unless everyone is above 14. Most school districts require more stringent ratios. Most third party campgrounds and facilities as well. Not sure how you are able to get around that. The blog I posted noted that BSA sorta kinda does require upping the adults as the scout head count goes up and it was in the old online TAP. Like I said, I don't understand the resentment to something that is common sense and part of being prepared.

You have loaded an awful lot of things onto the backs of the suppositional 3rd or 4th adults along on this imaginary outing we're talking about. If I'm reading you right, you are saying that having an extra adult or two turns a scout outing with 20 or 30 kids into a risk desert? That 20 or 30 kids will somehow not find something risky to do? You're saying that having "an heir and a spare" along is contributory to youth anxiety? I don't know how to interpret opinions like yours -- and I've read similar ones elsewhere on this site. I don't know where the resentment towards adequate adult supervision comes from. I can recall many conflicts and sometimes it was blatant parental interference and sometimes it was leadership negligence rightfully being called out -- like setting up camp under deadfall in a windstorm. I also cannot follow your logic regarding BSA. To most of the public, scouts is a generic term. They hear or see someone doing something questionable, and their reaction is -- Well, there they go again... They don't know or care whether you are part of BSA or not, they just know you are "a scout."

I'm sorry Tahawk but I am not at all clear on what you are trying to say. I think two adults present and accounted for... is pretty clear?

I get that in one sense but on the other hand given the bankruptcy situation we are in and all our current challenges, PR and otherwise, that is kind of an irresponsible viewpoint. If your unit parents were able to read this forum, is that what you would want them to read how you selected your summer camp location? That you chose it specifically because the camp did not require adequate adult supervision? Sometimes I think scouters have a death wish...

https://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2018/01/19/whats-the-difference-between-two-deep-leadership-and-no-one-on-one-contact/ Here, among other places. This is a little out of date because the requirements have become even more stringent in the past couple years. Edit: Also, I work with COs from two different denominations and they also demand a ratio of at least 1:10.

If you didn't fill out the prompts correctly, you got a red alert that you were honor bound to address before heading out. Did you not have to fill those out? Edit: It's referenced here on this forum because I remember having discussions about them.

No, that's not it. It's the one that you had to prompted thru to submit. You had to list enough adults to cover the number of scouts signed up. It was the last version I had to fill out before they did away with TAPs completely.

Okayyyy... but if the litmus test for YPT is two deep at all times no matter what then, being scouts, we have to "Be Prepared" to effect that, no? Also, the online Tour Plan has been gone for awhile but for a long time that stipulated 1:10 adults to scouts on any outing.

I didn't literally mean off "in the field" somewhere I meant the usual places -- summer camp and campgrounds. Over the past 15 or so years, we have rotated among about four scout camps in adjoining councils for summer camp. All require an adult ratio of at least one adult per 10 scouts at a minimum. So 30 scouts would require 3 to 4 adults. Our units wouldn't go with less than 4 because you can't maintain YPT if something comes up. Camp staff or rangers might be around but they are usually out of sight. I'm also surprised this doesn't come up on your camping permits at non scout campgrounds. Maybe it's regional but around here they will not accept so many juveniles without guaranteeing a certain ratio of adults to scouts when you fill out the application. As always, I'm amazed at the differences between units and regions. We take liberal views of a lot of BSA policies but not adult supervision. Maybe we have too many lawyers around here. I would also add our units are pretty much scout led. Adults are required -- but just "in case".

Additionally, I'm not proposing a change. This is pretty much how all units in my region interpret YPT requirements. There is no unit I know of within driving distance that would ever put 30 kids in the field with just two adults. It would never happen. Never.

Wow. YPT is pretty clear two adults always in BSA. Most youth activities do require two adults. I work with several worship houses in an interfaith council and all have youth protection policies that require two adults whenever children are present and the numbers of adults needed go up as the number of youth do and based on the activity. In the public educational environment, you cannot take youth on a field trip without a minimum of one adult per 3-4 children. There are some youth sports settings where a single coach with a team is OK but that is only because the field is ringed with parents and other officials.