Cburkhardt

I just spent the week at summer camp and read this only today.  I am familiar with the BSA process.

As a technical matter, national has an 800 number originally intended for persons to report misbehavior of employees.  The service is operated by an outside HR contractor.  Complaints can include any HR-related matters as well as abuse situations.  People became aware of the 800 number and began phoning-in complaints about volunteers and even youth.  Rather than ignore these reports, national's contractor makes local councils aware of the volunteer/youth complaints and follow-up is largely the responsibility of local councils.  I believe this might be why you were told this is a "national investigation".  One case I am familiar with involving Troop adult volunteers was dealt with locally in a manner that did not require law enforcement involvement, because the local council concluded the accusation did not fall within a mandatory reporting category.  The national contractor simply closed its file when the local council reported that the matter had been successfully resolved (the accusation was proved to be unfounded).

If you are contacted to provide your son's side of the story, my suggestion is to cooperate and put in writing the exonerating facts as confirmed by your Troop's eye witnesses and submit this to the local council executive handling the matter.  Do not overstate or slant anything.  When this matter is ultimately dismissed for want of any behavioral rule violations, this written statement, along with a written indication the the investigation was closed, will be the only documents to memorialize that "nothing happened". 

The BSA contractor and local council is not in the position to affirm that "nothing happened" and will merely discontinue the investigation for want of evidence of a violation.

Serious violations end up being adjudicated by the Scout Executive, who determines whether the person should be placed on the ineligible volunteer list.  If that happens, there is a two-level appeal process to the Territory (used to be the region) and then to national.  Those appeals are all done via paper and should involve an attorney on behalf of the ineligible volunteer to get things right.  Generally, these appeals are conducted cautiously to avoid re-admitting potentially abusing individuals.  Once on the list, it is difficult to be dropped from it.

My views about non-viability are limited to Venturing only.  Mashmaster, so you know of current, well-run "outdoor adventure" Venturing Crews of long-standing that exist without significant professional or commissioner servicing?  I don't see many of these based on many years of engagement, including the predecessor "outdoor adventure" version of Exploring in the 70s-80s.

 Sea Scouts is in a different 'circumstance and should survive relatively as-is for reasons beyond the scope of this posting (many of which have been previously discussed).  Sea Scouts has smaller numbers but is almost 100% serviced by a passionate stand-alone corps of volunteers from Ship through National.  It is nearly unaffected by the controversies and financial deformations of recent years, but needs to recover numerical strength due to COVID losses.  

Barry,  My thoughts start with my regretful view that the stand-alone program will not survive.   These are for the reasons already well-discussed above related to lack of demand, lack of focused volunteer resources to keep it going and a general failure to thrive for multiple factors.  I wish it were different.  Assuming that to be the case, my thoughts focus on repurposing the concept in a way to continue providing an older youth program that can function in a practical way.  Girls in our Troop stay because we offer a rigorous high-adventure program for them that is unavailable any where else in the District of Columbia.  We would simply brand that activity as Venturing and offer the girls the ability to do the advancement program.   The only things we would gain is use of the advancement program and and a rationale for older teen girls to join us (without having previously been active in the Troop).

Our Scoutmaster Staff Supports “Crew in the Troop” Concept.

We had a large Troop campout last weekend and asked our Scoutmaster Staff what they would think about adding a Venturing “patrol/crew” to our Troop.  We have 51 girls and are sending 14 (two trail crews) to Philmont this year.  After 3.5 years of operation, we now have a normal distribution of ages across the Troop.

The consensus was that it would be a good idea to have our older girls and especially our Eagles (we have 5 and will probably have another 5 this next year) in a Venturing Crew that would be internal to our Troop.  For practical purposes, it would function as a Patrol, but we would assign a couple of ASMs to it and they could work the Venturing advancement program (presuming it survives).  It would be an all-girl Crew, but we have a close relationship with a nearby all-boy Troop that would do the same thing.  That way, the two Crews could do co-ed things together.

My read of the postings and practical sense is that Venturing cannot survive as a stand-alone program and its potential future might be as a specialized and optional component of a Troop.  I wish it were different.

So what is your fix for Venturing?

94-A1:  I do not question your experience or representations.  However, since starting as a very active adult scouter in 1981, I have not witnessed yelling, screaming, cursing and other such behavior you discuss.  That does not mean I have not witnessed or personally experienced deep conflict and disappointment.  We each have our own experiences and viewpoints about things that are troubling, but I believe we do not have fundamental disconnects because most of us understand each other.  When I was council president of a newly-merged council I had to lead evaluation and ultimate closure of 4 of our 7 legacy camps.  We had vastly too much property and just could not fund it.  I personally interacted with thousands in the process and emailed with every adult or youth member registering a viewpoint (many of whom disagreed with what they accurately assumed were decisions I would lead).  However, throughout the entire process there was not one single negative media account, raised voice or disagreeable incident.  Yes, the camps did close and many were personally disappointed, but there was no “disconnect”, because people understood everything that was happening and why.  I find this to be in the DNA of Scouting.

Fred:  You are kind to say those things.  I certainly have been told and know I am not perfect.  But, if it is one thing I think I do right in Scouting and elsewhere is to offer to fix things.  I am careful about how often I say this, because the result is that I am often taken-up on my offer.  These end up being unseen tasks that are usually time-absorbing, but the satisfaction in seeing the anonymous fix in-place makes it worth it.  This is not the formula to get the Silver Buffalo.  However, it gets around that I am a positive man of my word.  Maybe that is why people generally return my calls.

Inquisitive:  No offense appears or is intended in my posting.  I only told my own story without reference to you, so I fail to understand the rage you expressed toward me.  

The mysteries of human interaction are such that I would never try to advise on your negative relationship with your Scout Executive.  I don’t profess to know much about humanity, but one thing I do believe is outside of intentional, repetitive criminals, nobody is 100% wrong or evil.  It looks like you have established the guardrails of your relationship with the man with your views on FOS.

I hope your Scout Executive and you can develop a better relationship.

40 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

These are the people worth holding on to!!!

 

SMH

 

SMH x 2

 

They could, but there is an ENORMOUS disconnect between the local professional side of the house and the volunteer side of the house.  A connection from National to local volunteers is non-existent, but that is, I believe, as it should be.

I know we volunteers are valued at the grass roots hometown level (the youth and parents we serve).  And I know that we are not valued by my current local council.  The ONLY impact you are going to have, on a large scale, with ANY youth, is THROUGH THE ADULT VOLUNTEERS.

Disconnect between local-national and volunteer-professional has been vanishing.  I am sure you have good reasons to say some of these things.  We all form views based on experience.  My experience is that there is not much disconnect across the movement, whether it is the local-national or volunteer-professional issue.  I am a dual unit leader (Troop and Ship) and yet have very productive conversations with volunteers and professionals across all levels of the movement.  Of course I restrict my communications to matters appropriate to the person I am conversing with and watch the frequency.  I am also broadly known as a person who performs.  I am known as a person who offers to “fix things” rather than complain.  Those are just my approaches, but my calls are always welcomed and returned.  They respect me as much as the mother I just Emailed to share I just arranged a scholarship for her son.

Now is a great time for people to re-evaluate these issues and how they personally operate.  We are moving from survival mode to work-out mode, all on the way to normalcy in a couple of years.  The only logical way to behave during this is to be flexible, positive and helpful.  We can all do this and will be better for it.

Best to wait a while before attempting to re-write a “general” program for young adults?  Perhaps because our society is going through such an extreme political and social upheaval, it might be best to wait a bit before attempting to write a program focused on a broad spectrum of young adults.  It would be good to have a thorough understanding of what societal challenges need to be addressed before designing another BSA structure of activities.  Simply re-designing badges, uniforms, structures and titles to fit immediate BSA circumstances  would not bring the vision needed to help our country in its upcoming epoch.

Thoughtful BSA responses to societal changes have worked before.  For instance, in the early 70s the Exploring program established an elaborate system called the “Explorer Presidents Association” to provide advanced leadership experiences at the district, Council, Area, Region and national levels.  It went far beyond the earlier Explorer Delegate leadership system, in that it provided significant financial, volunteer and professional time to operate leadership cabinets of Explorers (active year-around) elected by their peers in political-style conventions.  The conventions (called the “National Explorer Presidents Congress”) were huge and constituted the principal above-council program for Exploring.  Youth elected to the national cabinet would take a year off of school to serve.

What many don’t know was that the system was expressly intended to respond to the political upheaval of the country in the late 60s.  The conventions operated using modified nomination and election rules of the national parties, and the political leaders of the country were involved, including the White House.  They really thought the BSA could impact the outlook of young adults.  To a degree the effort succeeded, but the need for it began to fade and BSA professionals wanted to redirect the resources and energy elsewhere.  

The aftermath of this BSA effort was that many Explorers elected in this system went into successful political careers.  Others used the higher-lever leadership training to great use in corporate, military and BSA professional careers.  This generation is now entering retirement and had a good track record in contributing to the success of the country, including helping us process the conflict and confusion of the post-Vietnam era.

Does the BSA have the bandwidth and will do do such things like this again?  I think so, but I also believe it needs to wait so it can better understand the fundamental factors that will most impact our country over the next 25 years.  Maybe there is something about the dramatic and always changing circumstances young adults face that somehow require these young adult programs to evolve.  Finally, a waiting period would allow us to recover organizational health.

My predictions on the older teen programs.  Thanks for the many thoughtful comments.  For a while there were only a few of us posting, which by itself was indicating lack of overall interest in continuing Venturing.

I have deep personal background in the older-teen programs since I was both an “outdoor adventure” Explorer and Sea Explorer (sea Scouts was called Sea Explorers for a temporary period and reverted back) from 1973-1977.  As an adult Council Exploring Chairman in the late 1980s I spearheaded formation of 14 career-oriented Explorer Posts in Illinois — some of which are still in operation.  I served as adult National Vice-Chair of Venturing just prior to development of the current advancement program.

Cubs, Scouts and Sea Scouts have had remarkable consistency in program and operations through their histories, with the exception of the Improved Scouting Program of the early 70s.  In comparison, the older youth programs have been substantially re-written about every 20 years or so with mostly unsuccessful results.  The big exception would be the career-interest launch for Exploring in the early 70s, which became wildly popular with the corporate and educational establishments of this country.  It was based on solid program and marketing research.  At its height, that program had a half million enthusiastic participants.  
 

These re-write efforts seem to always have been forced by a perceived legal or membership issue.  An example was the killing of the hugely-successful career interest Exploring program by putting it in “Learning for Life” in order to allow Exploring to have gay members who would not be considered members of the BSA.  Once transferred into non-BSA status, it was instantly abandoned by any professional who had ambitions to rise within the profession.  Other difficulties were caused when small groups of visionaries dominated the program re-writes, forcing changes that might have satisfied intellectual constructs, but which were not capable of broad implementation.  The elaborate and whipsaw-changes to Exploring and Venturing advancement are in that category.

We are at another of these junctions, with obvious legal and membership issues greatly weighing-against continuing “stand alone” Venturing.  The Venturing numbers have entirely imploded and there is a scramble to rebuild the core Cub and Scout programs.  There is little apparent energy and interest at the local levels in continuing the implementation of Venturing aside from isolated pockets.  My view, based on experience and numbers (and without any inside information) is that “stand alone” Venturing will disappear.
 

An potential legacy of the program would the “Venture Scout patrol/crew within a Troop” concept.  However, most of the unique leadership structures and advancement concepts that grew up around Venturing  would likely be dropped.

Today’s non-BSA Exploring program is a echo of the career-interest Exploring program of the 70s.  The Explorer Posts that have survived the program upheavals are probably in-demand by current members, especially in the law enforcement and medically-related fields.  It might survive as long as it does not drain resources.
 

Sea Scouts is in an entirely different category.  Much closer to Cubs and Scouts in aspects of program and operation — and with a sustained, hard-core group of adult volunteer leaders.  The Coast Guard Auxiliary involvement is a positive game-changer.  It will survive.

I agree that the corps of adults in these specialized programs really believe in the programs and bring their professional expertise to them.  They are typically active or retired military or law enforcement people who are encouraged by their professions to be involved.  This has not really changed -- the Skippers of the Sea Scout Ship of my youth were WWII combat vets from the Navy and Coast Guard who belonged to our local Coast Guard Auxiliary and veterans organizations.   Now that Sea Scouts is the official youth program of the Coast Guard Auxiliary (which so far operates 27 Ships) I can see that potentially taking off in a big way.  Law enforcement and the military are in tight cooperation with these specialized programs for very good reasons.  They provide very stable COs.  The current day "stand alone" version of Venturing does not have these factors going for it.  If our counsel asked me to go form ten 'stand alone" Venturing crews, it would be a really tough job.   

Drop the dark green shirt and grey pants?

A commenter on last week's post suggested the dark green shirt and green pants be dropped.  It might need to happen anyway, as the post-bankruptcy organization cannot afford to stock separate uniforms for the now-tiny Venturing membership.  Should Venturing Scouts wear the Scouts uniform with a different color shoulder loop and distinctive patches?    

A related issue is what to call Venturing in the future.  I believe "Venturing Scouts" or "Venture Scouts" is the way to go.  We are probably going to brand the national organization and the current "Scouts BSA" program as  simply the "Scouts" after the bankruptcy and GSUSA cases are concluded.  It makes no sense to have any of our programs not expressly identified as "Scouts" in some manner.  

I favor the Venturing "patrol in a troop" format, because that would allow the current Venturing groups to continue their outdoor adventure programming in association with stable "feeder" troops that also focus on outdoor adventure.  If I use my own Scouts BSA Troop for Girls as an example, that would mean the scouts would continue their twice-monthly Saturday morning all-girl meetings and monthly all-girl campouts as they currently are.  A co-ed Venturing "patrol" in association with our troop would meet separately on other days and have its own separate campouts.  I could foresee having a few joint activities, such as courts of honor and large-scale service projects, but nothing that would disrupt the single-sex approach of the all-girl troop.  If the Venturing 'patrol" was all-girl, then I would have  a much tighter coordination with joint events.  Incidentally, if we put the issue up for a vote in our Troop, the overwhelming preference would be to go the all-girl Venturing patrol route.

Should co-ed Venturing Crews be folded into Scouts BSA as Venturing “Patrols”?  My posting last week sought ideas to upgrade prospects of “stand-alone” Venturing attracted little interest except for some good comments focused on diagnosing the problems.  This is not a surprise, as membership numbers and program support structures have plummeted or entirely disappeared in many councils. For purposes of this posting we will assume that Venturing is no longer sufficiently numerous to continue as the current “stand alone” program.  Assuming non-viability is the case (even if you disagree with the assumption): What do you think should be done with Venturing?  It occurs to me that the principal options include:

1.         Terminate Venturing entirely and focus financial and leadership resources elsewhere.

2.         Convert Venturing to an optional program like STEM Scouts.  Allow the remaining Venturing Crews to continue, but reallocate council resources elsewhere.

3.         Convert Venturing “Crews” into Scouts BSA “Patrols” attached to a Scouts BSA Troop.

4.         Spin-off Venturing into the non-BSA “Learning for Life” entity and allow them to function under the support structure for Exploring.

5.         Continue as-is and see what happens.

My personal leaning is that Venturing can best be positioned as a “Patrol” attached to a Scouts BSA Troop.  There are a number of interesting program and operational issues that would need to be considered, but I think it is doable.  Converting Venturing into a council-optional program or folding it into Exploring might be a formula for a continued slide into oblivion, but perhaps there are advantages to those approaches I am not aware of.

What say you?  I think this is an issue that will be dealt with within a year or so.  I have simultaneously posted a different thread asking what factors keep Sea Scouts and Law Enforcement Exploring functioning well.  If there are lessons to be learned from those programs that can be applied to Venturing, please use that posting to share your thoughts.

What Keeps Sea Scouts and Law Enforcement Exploring Running So Well?  COVID, the bankruptcy, and other operational and program deformations have severely impacted Venturing, but Sea Scouts and Law Enforcement Exploring seem to just continue on with sufficient numbers of young adult and adult members.  There is not much in the way of needed BSA professional time or financial investment.  What are the factors about these teen-focused programs that have quietly kept them operating for decades?

If I was council president again and based my views on the membership implosion, non-interest shown in this post and few suggestions offered, I would conclude that outdoor adventure “green shirt” Venturing is not going to work anymore as a “stand alone” program.  A national program lacking broad internal interest and support cannot be rebooted by resource-lacking 18-to-21 year-olds or adults (such as parents) who are not already deeply engaged with Scouting.  If it has a future as a "stand alone" program, Venturing might need to become a council-optional program dependent entirely on volunteer management.  I am open to being convinced otherwise.

I meant “not necessarily my preference.”

If you think parents of potential youth members are unlikely to serve or are otherwise inappropriate to be a Venturing crew Advisor or Committee member, then where are these people going to come from to reboot an entire program?  I might prefer others, but of the many units like this I formed over the years, there were always at least a few parents among the most effective Advisors.  That is my observation and experience, not necessarily my experience.

Are there sufficient numbers of capable adult volunteers to save Venturing?   

Commenters are sharing that a principal challenge for continuing a stand-alone Venturing program is recruiting a sufficient number of adults to vigorously support Venturing Crews.  The reality is that Venturing youth and adult membership has shrunk so much that a stand-alone Venturing program probably would need to be fundamentally re-established in many localities.  My observation is that the professional and volunteer structures above the unit level will continue to focus on re-establishing Cub Scouts and Scouts BSA -- putting the future of Venturing in the hands of interested adult volunteers.  Nobody has posted any numbers or other evidence to counter the impression that Venturing adult volunteers are vanishing and not being replaced in in numbers to retain fundamental "stand alone" program viability.  Absence of sufficient Venturing membership will cause the discussions about Venturing advancement and youth age ranges to become irrelevant.  

My experience is that the indispensable and most-effective adult volunteer leaders for Venturing (and previous outdoor adventure Exploring) are parents of youth who matriculated from Scout Troops.  If these parents are no longer volunteering in sufficient numbers, this may determine the future of "stand alone" Venturing.

Fred8033:

I am similarly sad to read the documents revealing the actions GSUSA was taking at the time of our most-extreme peril.  I recall the ferocious things their national leadership said publically about volunteers in the BSA (like the posters on this site).  Most regretfully, I am troubled by how these attitudes were directly transmitted to their professionals and volunteers at the local level.  Despite the bad behavior displayed and harshest words spoken to us nationally and locally, I have not heard one anti-GSUSA peep from anyone on this site, on my Scoutmaster Staff or around our local council.  

One important thing has changed though.  Our Scouts BSA Troop for Girls was once thought to be an "alternate" program for young women.  Parents and their daughters would visit our open houses and directly contemplate whether they would join GUSUA or Scouts BSA for Girls.  No longer.  Three years on Scouts BSA for Girls is now a very normal and broadly-accepted activity for girls in the District of Columbia metropolitan area.  They now come to us and gladly join without any mention of other youth services programs.  This is only a limited observation of one Scoutmaster in one Troop, but I'll note the difference is significant.

Qwazse:  Please be very direct.  Which ages are you in favor of being in a continuing "stand alone" program?  There have been several age-range ideas floating around and I'd like to know the format you favor and why.  Thanks, Cburkhardt.

Other than getting Bankruptcy Court permission to pursue their trademark case, I think the only connection to the bankruptcy was that they filed a claim.

I will start with broad observations and policy views on Venturing.  I was not part of the “Churchill” effort, so these thoughts are my own.  A scouting-type program for older youth has existed in in the BSA in some form for many decades.  I believe the BSA should serve these older youth as a matter of fulfilling its organization-wide purpose if it can do so without undermining its ability to strongly re-establish and support Cub Scouts and Scouts BSA.  With the exception of Sea Scouts, older youth programming has been inconsistent and dramatically overhauled every twenty years or so.  This relatively frequent overhauling is a principal reason the programs do not have a robust base of supportive adult volunteers and alumni.

If Venturing continues as an independent BSA program, it might become a council-optional program to be managed and serviced exclusively by volunteers on a council or territory basis.  I believe professional resources need to be focused on re-establishing and servicing lost Cub Scout and Scouts BSA units for the foreseeable future.

Girls who once joined Venturing for the purpose of accessing a BSA advancement system can now advance through an all-girl Scouts BSA Troop.  For this reason, the Venturing advancement system should be evaluated to determine whether this has diminished overall demand for Venturing advancement below viability.

If continued as a stand-alone program, Venturing must be supremely inexpensive and easy to form and operate.