Cburkhardt

Early on, the bankruptcy discussions on these posts had a broader perspective including the impacts on both the BSA as an institution and claimants individually. There was a natural narrowing of the discussion and claimants led the way as the bankruptcy proceedings focused on the complex technical treatment of the claims and establishment of the trust. Now we are beginning to deal with the how the bankruptcy is significantly impacting the future for various BSA entities and it going-forward members. This discussion will ultimately include things like mergers, local council bankruptcies and significant local and national changes (many positive) in the program and its management as a direct or indirect result of the bankruptcy. Perhaps the moderators should consider opening a new thread and specifically focus it on the trust implementation and claimant-related issues so claimant-related parties can discuss the details of trust implementation without mixing-in BSA structural issues. The rest of us can then open individual threads on BSA structural issues with a bankruptcy connection as they arise.

First, I’ll answer the original poster’s question. She exhibited objection to hearing religious viewpoints being shared at a BSA meeting (apparently a district BSA function), concern that her child might hear a religious viewpoint at some future BSA event and wants to know how she can avoid such circumstances. The answer is simple. The BSA will not limit the sharing of a religious prayer at one of its events. The BSA will not restrict a group of girls in our Troop from deciding they wish to pursue a religious badge. The BSA will not prohibit me from presenting my optional Sunday morning “moment of thankfulness” during one our campouts. This is because the BSA is a religiously tolerant organization and will not prohibit these expressions of religious freedom. The BSA will not sort through viewpoints and determine which are and are not acceptable. That is the role for your church, temple, ethical society or other group from which your family might seek such advice. The original poster can absent herself from such circumstances and can instruct her daughter to do the same. If she is zero-tolerant, she can join one of the many other organizations that disallow expressions of religious faith. The point is that the original poster will not succeed in using the BSA to limit simple expression of religious belief. Further, she will not be able to use the BSA to limit expression to one particular religious viewpoint. The policy works well in practice because it works for those who have found a belief and for those who are searching. That is as far as I will go in discussing it. Part of being effective and happy as a volunteer in the BSA is understanding your capabilities, interests and concerns and blending with them into the BSA as a generally tolerant person. We are a big, broad organization that serves the vast swath of young people in America. If a person is a committed Atheist and regardless wants to voluntarily associate with the openly religiously tolerant BSA, that person is perfectly capable of dealing with it. What I have never seen work successfully is for a person to join the BSA with a particular viewpoint and go about trying to narrow the functions or membership of the BSA to fit that viewpoint.

The BSA’s Declaration of Religious Principles is a wide-open policy that welcomes all. In our Troop this certainly includes the girls who are still trying to figure out just what it is that they believe. It is the business of their families to help them sort those issues out. People who want to filter certain religious or philosophical beliefs from their children’s ears are free to do so. You just can’t use the BSA to enforce your personal views on others. This is because the BSA is not a temple, church or other religious, ethical or philosophical organization. Varying groups have tried to enlist the BSA to advocate or limit specific religious viewpoints and all have failed. We are a huge group and are reflective of a religiously tolerant society.

I believe the declaration of religious principles as actually observed within the BSA is effective and appropriate. Those of us who have been deeply engaged for decades in promoting the operations and quality of the BSA have gone through many cycles of discussion and sometimes conflict regarding what the BSA should or should not do as its unpaid volunteers offer program to young people. I read through this thread and congratulate many for the low key and relatively accepting postings on a topic that has sometimes elicited rage. The BSA is sufficiently large and diverse to function as a proxy for American society -- with the exception that it focuses on the lives of young people. It is because we are so large and embracing of the broader world that families listen to what we have to say. The degree of interest in having the BSA adopt or discontinue practices is very high because we actually cause change in people’s lives. Part of being effective and happy as a volunteer in the BSA is understanding your capabilities, interests and concerns and blending with them into the BSA as a generally tolerant person. What I have never seen work successfully is for a person to join the BSA with a particular viewpoint and go about trying to narrow the functions or membership of the BSA to fit that viewpoint. There are other scouting-like organizations that can satisfy focused program and membership preferences if the BSA’s more-open approach is not agreeable.

Mergers. We will see many of these and for good reason. The principal reason is to being higher-quality program resources in the form of personnel (volunteer and professional) and facilities. The days of the council service center being a critical location for meetings and other activities are long over. These mostly-underutilized locations are often oversized due to legacy staffing levels. With Zoom meetings having largely replaced shorter meetings that used to take place there, and mail order having replaced the need for in-store stocking at the service center, the better option is to have smaller rented locations at multiple locations rather than a larger service center. Distance from a service center is not the issue it once was. Mergers used to be opposed by unit level Scouters for the sole reason that these placed council camping properties at risk of being sold. The bankruptcy changed that dynamic, with many of the marginal properties already having been sold to fund the trust. My sense is that people have moved on from insisting that marginal properties be retained at all cost. People want fewer and upgraded properties and one way to do that is to merge. Finally, the willingness of well-run councils to merge will evolve. Councils that are known for great operations, finances and pristine properties are not interested in merging with nearby councils known for bitter infighting, worn out camps and loads of debt. I foresee some poorly-run councils lacking merger partners and needing to liquidate before well-run councils are going to be willing to absorb those geographies. A council that worked hard to survive the bankruptcy and institute best practices is not going to want to introduce unnecessary post-bankruptcy risk in the form of volunteer leadership that has demonstrated shoddy YPT enforcement. The merger process will continue to weed-out poor performers the way the bankruptcy has.

Extrapolating membership results of other Scouting organizations after they admitted girls is interesting, but it is not predictive in our circumstances. We have gone through circumstances that would long-ago have destroyed any other not-for-profit organization I am aware of. This includes two decades of extreme dispute over membership standards, ten years of high-profile civil litigation against BSA councils over youth abuse, formation of a competitor organization that presents an ongoing public relations and membership campaign targeted to discourage boys and men from joining the BSA, departure of our largest national chartered organization (and disgruntlement of some other national chartered organizations) and a multi-year existential youth abuse bankruptcy and public relations crises focused on sexual abuse claims from 85,000 former boy members. Pile on top of that bankruptcy-related sales of many of our camps, generalized distrust by today’s parents of organized youth activities, more-effective competition from youth sports and two years of a worldwide pandemic that shut-down much of our operations for an extended period. These reasons are why we lost membership and are in a struggle to regain organizational health. The reason we are still here, after all of that, it that the underlying principals we ascribe to and the character examples and program we provide children are absolutely the finest possible assemblage of youth development experiences a family can benefit from – and at least a million families have voted to stay with us and we are actually growing. For those of us of faith, we could not have survived this without the almighty providing us forgiveness and ongoing encouragement. It is the fundamental goodness of what we accomplish that has allowed us to still exist and will allow us to grow far into the future. I know this to be true, and that you are reading this posting and sharing your considered thoughts on something of great importance to you supports my point. We must focus on emphasizing and upgrading how we bring life to these fundamentals and minimize focus on the previous imperfect technical activities of well-intended categories of Scouters/Scouts commenters sometimes point to (professionals, council volunteers, district volunteers, professionals who are no longer with us who made mistakes years ago, girls, people who give us big money and expect to have their voices heard, young volunteers who do not yet “get it”… you get the idea. I respect the views of everyone on this site – even the people who consistently down-arrowed me a few years back for my support of all girl troops. I just don’t accept argument that the admission of girls into Scouts BSA, which has led to significant girl involvement in groups separate from boys, has led to the diminishment of our membership or will do so in the future. Female youth membership has not provided the transforming boon to us yet, but my four years of Scoutmastering a successful girl troop inform me that this is definitely on the way. Thank you to all who are forwarding this important conversation, no matter your views.

Can we focus more on how having Girls in Scouts BSA will impact the BSA over the long run?

Here are some predictions to get this going. In 2033 ....... · Female youth membership will comprise 45% of BSA membership. · BSA will have reconfigured Cub Scouts by migrating to a GSUSA-style formation and operation model for that age group. Emphasis will be on larger dens without packs and no chartered organizations. The uniform will become a casual-style shirt with printed or iron-on insignia. Outdoor programming for Cub Scouts will be increased and upgraded. Mixed gender Dens will be allowed., but these will comprise only 15% of Dens. · After the business model is adjusted for Cub Scouts, girl membership experiences explosive growth and more directly and effectively serves large numbers of girls (and boys) in elementary school looking for outdoor experiences. Cub Scouts will become the largest youth service program for girls. · Scouts BSA for Girls will continue under the same program and advancement structure and will still have gender-segregated Troops. The uniform will be similar to what we have today, although female versions will have a better fit. The emphasis on linked troops will have faded, with former girl youth members returning as adult leaders no longer wishing to defer to legacy adult leadership structures from the boy troops. · Females will earn the majority of Eagle Scout badges earned each year · The BSA will adopt a new name: “Scouts of America”. The “Scouts BSA” program name will be adjusted to be consistent with the new branding. A possible move might be to brand the program as “Eagle Scouts”, with an appropriate distinction being developed to differentiate between those who have earned the top rank from those who have not. · Scouts of America will have youth participation rates and market penetration greatly exceeding 1980s levels, in part due to 45% of all youth members being female. · The Chartered Organization concept will have legally and structurally evolved to the point where participating third party organizations that follow the structure are no longer are liable for instances of youth abuse. · Seven female members of Congress will be former Scouts BSA members. · Service academies will successfully scramble for female Eagle Scout candidates. · The older youth programs (Venturing and Sea Scouts) will remain as small specialty programs. Females will comprise 50% of membership. Venturing units will be affiliated with Scout Troops.

How will having girls in Scouts BSA impact the BSA over the long term? By long term I mean your predictions should be of impacts at least ten years distant. You can be bold if you wish -- and I do not insist that you be granular or specific with your analysis. And, it is fine to predict impacts going beyond the BSA. I want you to swing for the fences as you predict things. I encourage those of you who do not participate frequently to have some fun and post on this thread. We have had four previous postings to suggest how units and councils can improve implementation and have captured what can be done to grow the size and quality of girl troops. We have received many fine thoughts and several thousand views. After this winds down I’ll share a summary of what I think we have learned during these past several weeks.

Eagle1993: My views on Scouts BSA Troops for Girls regard program quality and feasibility at the unit level. What specifically are the "drastic changes" you seek? I'm guessing you are focused on the above-unit levels.

Most of the conversation in these postings regards two questions: “Is what our lodges do with regard to the depiction of Native American culture ever going to be accepted by the larger Native American community?” And: “Is the continued engagement by youth members of the Order of the Arrow in the representation of Native American culture fundamental to the achievement of BSA goals? The answer to both questions is no. It is impossible to envision a time when Native American communities will broadly accept the depiction of their culture by our young people through costumed depictions of people or related ceremonial language. It is just not going to happen from this point forward in our nation’s history. Respectful study of the Native Americans of the past and present sound like activities that would be respected or encouraged, but not the depictions of their ancestors or contemporaries – no matter how authentic the costuming or perfected the language. Depictions by our youth members of Native Americans and their culture is entirely unnecessary to maintain an honor camping and service organization. The BSA can look within its own history and nature itself to find countless non-offensive concepts that can bind together an organization and inspire its most-qualified youth members. OA cannot survive perpetual controversy and reasonable objections over continuing a now-obsolete activity of having our youth depict Native Americans. It does violence to our effort to engage more young people in the OA and in Scouting itself. We would be foolish to continue non-core practices that require us to “explain ourselves” to broad audiences of offended people. After twenty years of unnecessary battle over cultural issues, we need peace and tranquility to recover organizational health. We need to focus on reestablishing broad societal acceptance of Scouting as a safe, uplifting and appropriate activity for young people in our country.

The lack of mid-course corrective suggestions tells me BSA is using a great approach with the all-girl Scouts BSA troops. I’ll admit I struggled a bit to come up with the above suggestions I made. We just need to keep with the current approach and do more of it — just like with the boy troops.

The principal thought about Scouts BSA for girls is that it is so dramatically different as a program from GSUSA at the 11-18 age group that we are not in competition with them. I do not believe the girls in our troop would be happy in a GSUSA unit because they are looking for the rigorous and frequent outdoor programming we offer. I recall being shocked by the fighting words used by their national leadership when we first opened to girls. They have not been harmed by our program opening to girls and I was surprised they were not more confident in their own offerings at the time. In my view, the weak trademark lawsuit was a mistake, and the judge agreed by dismissing the case. I wish them well because they do good works for children. However, I don’t anticipate they will ever be interested in encouraging their people to engage jointly with us. Just think about the benefits their children could obtain at our high adventure bases and at our most-thrilling council long term camps (Ten Mile, Goshen, Owasippe, etc.). Their approach disadvantages their own girls.

Unit Level. Adapt unit web sites to more directly explain the relevance of Scouts BSA to girls. Form advisory committees of outstanding women in the community who can present as role models during unit meetings. Target and recruit outdoorswomen from the community to join the Troop Committee. Council Level. Assure long term camp bathroom facilities are better managed. There is some youthful teasing of Scouts entering and exiting these facilities. This should include entirely separate facilities. Task commissioners to work with girl troops on growth, including organizational and operations approaches that work especially well for girl troops. Focus on one-patrol troops who need help in scaling-up. National. Encourage formation of more “stand alone” troops which are not linked with boy troops. Establish merit badges in topic areas of widespread interest to girls. Examples could include ballet, sports and hobby endeavors popular with girls, fashion industry, and interior design (many of these appeal to boys as well). Update marketing materials to reflect that a girl who chooses Scouts BSA is not making a “new” or “alternative” choice. Focus girl-specific marketing on outdoor programming to take advantage of BSA’s superior offerings and position in the marketplace. Emphasize outdoor experiences girls have in a Scouts BSA troop that they can’t get in other organizations, including other all-girl organizations. Position Scouts BSA for Girls as the best option for a girl in the minds of girls and parents – we need to respond to the approaches of other organizations. The time to be openly proud of what we have accomplished in our girl troops is now.

What suggestions do you have to upgrade the Scouts BSA program for girls? This can include operational matters at the unit and council level, as well as suggested program or management changes at the national level.

I used to think there were two things that one could never change in Scouting: our properties and OA. That is really not true. Evolving these aspects of Scouting does happen in a positive manner when the first and final analysis prioritizes the best interests of our young people. The regularly-involved unit leader perspective is that OA is “twisting in the wind” with regard to its long term role and continuing relevance. This is solely because the controversial aspects of the program have not yet been processed. I can see why this is so, because we have all been dealing with so many fundamental issues these past years that to process OA’s programmatic difficulties might have been too much. But letting these issues hang out there is a problem, and we need to clear ourselves of these problems so we can recover our overall organizational effectiveness. Organizations need program elements and narratives to bind them together. It is a fact of life that organizations using Native American customs and history for this are attacked and sued until the practices end. The broad social rejection of this is not going to reverse. If the purpose of the OA was to teach Native American customs or history, we would have a big problem. But that is not its purpose. An honor organization for Scouting that promotes camping and cheerful service is not forever reliant upon the current narratives to thrive. Asking adults who are motivated to continue as-is to determine what should bind the OA together does not sound like a good process. Rather, a special task force overwhelmingly dominated by our young members can be guided to resolve these matters within a concentrated time frame.

The program belongs to the young adults who are involved. We cannot go wrong by letting them take the lead on what form the Order of the Arrow needs to take in the future. That is how the seemingly unresolvable challenge of evolving this program can be effectively handled. In the 1970s I was influenced greatly and had possibilities in life expanded through peer and adult examples I was able to observe while serving as a Chapter Chief and in in multiple Lodge offices. I was ceremonies chair and led an honorable dance team with advice from local Native Americans for several years as a young adult. I dearly loved and respected what I knew of the culture of the Native Americans, even though with the passage of time I have come to realize that we were engaging in an earnest, well-intended re-creation of a life we knew little of. Imagination and memory cause me to recall something that was more authentic and respectful that it actually was. I benefitted immensely from my OA experience in many practical ways. However, the extensive use of Native American lore and the intricate wording of the ceremonies adapted from other organizations did not provide these benefits. It was the exposure to people, leadership challenges above the unit level and the chance to provide service in broader ways that advantaged me. The BSA has gone through 20 years of harsh times, overwhelmingly due to some of our members and leaders insisting on factors and practices that were not fundamental to the purposes of the BSA, and not essential to provide positive outcomes for our young adult members. Going through all of that was awful and significantly damaged our organization. As we emerge from that period of awfulness, we need peace and normality so we can fully recover our organizational health and mission effectiveness. As an adult leader of two successful units, I support letting our young people guide the way as to what is important to them to experience above the unit level in an OA-style honor program. I am not supportive of a public battle to preserve certain aspects of OA that are not fundamental to what we are trying to achieve – no matter how beloved or compelling to any adult Scouters. I can assure you that none of the 90 youth, 180 parents and 60 adult leaders in my units will line-up to defend the continuation of practices that will renew or extend BSA controversy.

Girls participating in Scouts BSA love the program and it serves them well when troops are well run. I’m glad that does not seem to be questioned in the comments. So, it is really a matter of market penetration to establish, maintain and grow quality girl troops. We can do that effectively during the next five or so years as we continue to recover from – well – just about everything that has challenged the BSA these last twenty years. We can’t expect in four years to have developed the deep bench of leaders who have a particular interest in forming and supporting girl troops – especially women who have outdoor skills and an interest in being engaged in the program for the long run. I will share a very hopeful (and unscientific) observation of women scouters present at a recent annual OA lodge banquet I attended for one of the largest lodges in the country. The place was packed with about 400 people, including a very large representation of women scouters. Anyone could tell they were deeply engaged in the program and among the most enthused Scouts BSA leaders. This aligns with my own girl troop experience, where we are now attracting outdoorswomen leaders who do not have a child in the troop. Further, mothers are remaining involved as leaders even after their daughters graduate and head to college. My hope is that this is an indication that we are indeed building the adult leadership infrastructure that will help build bigger and better girl troops over time. We all need to extend an effective a welcome to these female leaders. As for the GSUSA, I don’t know much about their program but do understand their business model. It seems to be effective at recruiting both girls (and their mothers) at the early elementary ages. Starting a GSUSA unit seems easier and requires fewer resources that a BSA unit. Their financial model is dependent on product sales to fund the entire organization from local to national – and they seem to be successful at it in terms of dollars raised. Based on my observations of the 11-year-old girls and families that arrive at our troop, and what these people say about their GSUSA experiences, the GSUSA program model seems less successful at the Scouts BSA age. Our Troop is direct about our outdoor emphasis and regularity of program offerings, and this is what causes these girls to join Scouts BSA. The GSUSA has outdoor programming, but our families tell us there is a dramatic difference in the quality and quantity of outdoor experiences. The same applies to youth leadership training. I’m happy the GSUSA has a strong organization in our area and serves so many girls. At the Scouts BSA level I just don’t think we are in competition with them or ever will be. The programs at the Scouts BSA ages are just entirely different from each other and have different desired outcomes. My impression is that GSUSA is very satisfied with their program for older girls and are not likely to adopt BSA-style practices. I don’t have well-developed thoughts about the Cub Scout age level, where it seems more likely that there may be a sense of competition for girl members. While there might be advantages in working cooperatively, the GSUSA prohibits its volunteers and troops to work with us. My conclusion is that we will continue to exist as separate organizations that will have minimal dealings with each other.

The impacts of adding Scouts BSA troops for girls and Cub Scout dens for girls have been tremendously positive in the lives of involved young women. My observation these past five years is that our Scouting program in all of its aspects (outdoor, advancement, leadership, etc.) impacts girls just as significantly and positively as boys. I have seen the very techniques that have proven so effective with boys work as well with girls without modification. Girls who reach First Class receive a boost in capability unsurpassed by any other program experience for girls. I have seen them do better academically in school, better socially among their non-scouting friends and far beyond their age peers in leadership-oriented activities outside Scouting. The girls that achieve the upper ranks (especially Eagle) obtain an uber-confidence and poise that seem to propel them far beyond their age peers. In terms of leadership, we offer something to girls that is simply not available elsewhere in the youth services environment – to be truly in leadership of a large, sophisticated organization – with all of the successes, fails, pressures, high-stakes challenges and other dynamics we are all familiar with. They become more organized, listen better, planning-oriented, kind and develop a keen capability to resolve conflicts. I have no doubt that at least 5-10 young women who have gone through the leadership program of our large troop and NYLT-style instruction are going to have significantly higher-achieving leadership-oriented careers than they otherwise would have had precisely because of Scouts BSA. The experiences available through other organizations would just not have opened their eyes and provided the right challenge to them. What we offer is just as unique and rigorous for girls as for boys – so we should not be surprised when we see these young women soar in their family, school and career lives. Some of these individuals will go on to have meaningful and positive impacts on our society. I have not observed negative impacts on boys or girls related to girls engagement in Scout BSA programming. The over-the-top warnings that boys would somehow be denied the benefits of Scouting because of girls proved to be all talk and no reality. In short, participation by girls in Scouts BSA has made them more kind, smart, confident, leader-like, and educated. They do better socially in their families and peer groups. The impacts we seek for boys in Scouting are being achieved for girls. We have succeeded. We need to understand and gladly accept this success.

Mr. John's2: What have been the key determinants of the good quality of your girl troop's program? What in your view causes your girl members to stay active with your troop? Do the girls have the same level and frequency of opportunities that the boys do?

Altadena: I'll bet over 90% of our girl members in Scouts BSA are in linked troops, so please do not take my observations as "anti-linked" in any way. It sounds like your two troops are doing a great job of operating the linked concept as it was envisioned. My first question on evaluating the presence of girls in Scouts BSA focuses on the roll-out process, and my key observation is that those who rolled-out the program focused almost exclusively on forming linked units. The stand-alone troops I am aware of were formed without much (if any) assistance from district or council folks. I think more stand alone units might have been formed if the work plan was not so narrowly focused. Everyone will be interested in hearing about your experiences on the interaction between your girl and boy members in the separate troops. Early in the process there were some real "over the top" comments that any interaction whatsoever would "ruin" the entire program for the boys. I don't observe that to be the case when our girls informally interact with boy troops at summer camp and at camporees. I encourage you to post such comments or others about your fine troops in response to Question #2 (unit quality).

I like Ducktape’s idea of engaging in an effort to recruit adult unit leaders not necessarily related to one of the youth members. 3 of our 11 ASMs are such people and are among our strongest participants. They all have previous Scouting experience and have significantly upgraded the quality of the member experience. This reminds me of something our committee did when I was a council VP for the old Exploring program (which previously combined the current Venturing and Exploring programs into one program unit). We visited Chartered Organizations and asked them to identify adults to be unit leaders and commissioners (the old Exploring program referred to their specialized commissioners as Service Team members). Surprisingly, the effort worked. We had special group training for these people at a nice location and served meals and refreshments. That was 30 years ago and some of those people are still involved. People out there are interested in helping our young members. We are past the horrible disputes over social issues and nearing the fresh breath we will have when the bankruptcy appeal has concluded. Ducktape is correct — we need to invite adults back into Scouting.

A few thoughts on my second question: Outdoor Program. The Scouts BSA troops for girls in our district offer good outdoor program for girls. All three troops do monthly campouts and summer camp. All three have good representation of strong outdoorswomen among their scoutmasters, which I believe makes a huge difference (and is required by YPT). All have participated in district camporees at a credible level. What is good about this is how unremarkable and mainstream the outdoor program is in these all-girl troops. The early speculation that all-girl units would go “glamping” and engage in other watered-down outdoor experiences never materialized. High Adventure. Two of our units have sent scouts to our high adventure bases. It took a couple of years to ramp-up the skills of the scouts involved, but our Troop will now send a group somewhere every summer. Unit Size. Except for a few, the all-girls troops are generally smaller, meaning under 15 youth members. This means the more-advanced scouts may have less program opportunity and belong to units where there a fewer fully-engaged adults. Unless resolved over time, this means the troop program will ultimately be of lesser quality than what we can offer. It also makes these units more fragile. In the linked-troop units, this has led to some “small girl patrol in the big boy troop” situation, which generally leads to poor membership experiences for the girls. Having Fun. Girls in our troops tell us that they appreciate the open welcome our program offers, especially in comparison to school groups and other girl-focused activities where group social dynamics can become upsetting. Girls work out their personal differences within patrols in a manner I have come to understand does not happen as easily in school. As a result, the program of the troop is especially attractive to them. We have very good meeting attendance, which I partially attribute to this. Adult Leadership. This has been tough in the smaller girl units. We do not yet have a long history of female participation, so I find myself needing to work longer and harder to recruit female committee members and scoutmasters. Overall, this seems to be a program challenge for all-girl troops.

Question Two: Do girl members of Scouts BSA experience quality programming? Share specific facts from what you have observed about local all-girl troops. I encourage everyone to approach this by putting yourselves in the shoes of these scouts and sharing what you see working or not working for them in your nearby all-girl Scouts BSA troops.