CynicalScouter

Two ways this could go down: 1) National AND Council Insurance doesn't cover ALL claim amounts. So there is $1 billion in liability and National assets + Council assets + National AND Council Insurance is less than $1 billion, the COs will be dragged in to cover the rest. 2) National AND Council Insurance Policies are void due to improper practices by National. This was the claim from at least some of the insurance companies. This happened in 2013 with the Oregon lawsuits and in 2018 with the mass of claims. So there is $1 billion in liability and National + Councils + National AND Council Insurance is less than $1 billion, the COs will be dragged in.

Not yet. I can't help but think that once it becomes clear that the assets of National + Councils + the various insurance companies fail to get up into the $1 billion+ range that the CO's will be forced into the bankruptcy OR a separate, parallel global settlement.

But that's the point I asked in another thread about following rules. It isn't the CO's "youth program". If the only limitation you want to impose is "don't meddle with advancement" then you don't have a cohesive organization or program. Unit A can decide it will do away with BSA's Youth Protection, Unit B can be limited to only white children, etc. Then you don't have Boy Scouts of America. You've got an off the shelf, customizable mess in which anyone can slap the label on their program and call it "Boy Scouts" or "Scouts, BSA."

Source? EDIT: The data I saw was that AT MOST 40-43% of abusers were other children. Finkelhor, D. (2012). Characteristics of crimes against juveniles. Durham, NH: Crimes against Children Research Center Snyder, H. N. (2000). Sexual assault of young children as reported to law enforcement: Victim, incident, and offender characteristics. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved January 12, 2009 fromhttp://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/saycrle.pd

I am familiar with the distinction between exploratory, descriptive and explanatory research. Only, here's the difference. According to @Eagledad they had the answer they wanted to test: programmatic failures are the sole cause of membership decline. If that is the case, his methodology was inherently flawed. And using data from 25 years ago to examine current conditions? Forget it. But as I said in a prior post. I'm now utterly convinced. Scouting needs to go Back to The Future, purge/cleanse the program of anything developed post-1969. Because nothing's changed since the Nixon administration. If it was how Green Bar Bill did it, or better still Baden-Powell, then we should do EXACTLY that (I assume that for those proposing a return to the original Baden-Powell literature that some adjustment would have to be made to ensure Scouts here in the U.S. do not vow to do their duty to the King/Queen but perhaps no?)

Vague descriptions? I'll have heard so far by the traditionalist/Back to the Future group has been "Let's go back to the program circa 1964" or 1927 or 1908. If people don't even come in the door to be disappointed in the program, no sense worrying about program. But sure, they win. I'm now utterly convinced. Let's go back the 1908 or 1927 model which so many seem to want to embrace. No need to change or adapt. Let's offer the same program that was written at the start and offer up to modern American family. Because nothing's changed in the last century, we need to offer more of the same. I'm persuaded.

Nope. You give your interpretation of data collection that may or may not have happened. Using 25 year old data (which again, you refuse to share) to gauge current conditions? Sure, the program may not have changed, but parents and children and U.S. society HAVE. EDIT: 25 years ago, people's perceptions on issues related to scouting, abuse, homosexuality, tolerance, allowing girls in (or not), etc. were very, very different. If I tried to pass off 25 year old data as an indicator of current conditions in my work, I'd be laughed out of the room. But the fact that you want to speaks volumes. Any research that doesn't have a research question/theory is failed process. That's literally research methods 101. The idea is that you use the research to test the theory. Theory: Scouts like trout flavored ice cream. Research method: RCT of scouts, expose to trout flavored ice cream. Gauge reaction on 7 point Lickert scale. Results: ??? Interpretation/Conclusions: ??? That tell me all I need to know about your research methods. Assuming you actually did the research (which again, you refuse to release for peer review/inspection) then it was based on a flawed model.

Which leads me to believe this has nothing to do with programming and everything to do with BSA simply being a relic of a bygone era OR associated with a bygone era. Running Back to the Future and trying to recreate that 1960s program (including no girls, no homosexuals, etc.) is not going to get you what you want. Or maybe it is what you (or others) want? A smaller, but "pure" "Traditional" scouting experience.

Because that data doesn't exist. Got it. Which was (part) of my point. Membership collapsed for several reasons. I believe social issues was a portion and I believe today is a very, very large portion why people don't even show up at the door (that and the abuse scandal). Failing to address that and instead embracing a "Make Scouting Great Again"/Back the Future approach circa 1960 is not going to get you where you think it is.

It also flourished at a time when American looked much different in terms of its respect for and interest in Boy Scouts (circa 1960s-1980s). Programming changed. So did people's perceptions of BSA. How much of the decline in scouting membership is due to a failure to adhere to the "pure" Scouting of the 1920s or 1960s? How much of the decline in scouting membership is due to a failure of BSA to address (until recently) abuse? How much of the decline in scouting membership is due to a failure of BSA to allow girls? How much of the decline in scouting membership is due to BSA's decision to fight allowing homosexuals in (all the way to SCOTUS)?

Refusal to allow girls into scouting is a "moral values" issue? Refusal to allow homosexuals into scouting is a "moral values" issue? Refusal to stop, address, or report sexual abuse in scouting is a "moral values" issue? If so, and if they are simply things you will never, ever accept, then don't be shocked when BSA membership numbers collapse.

No, I'd like to see the data you claim shows that the BSA membership decline was due to other factors. You claimed it existed, I am asking for proof. You have definitely and (supposedly) authoritatively claimed that BSA's policies a) banning homosexuals and b) banning girls had 0 impact in recruitment and retention and c) that there was data to prove it. So, cough up the "trends and program reviews". Produce your data showing that I'm wrong and that the failure to recruit and retain is entirely because of BSA's refusal to go with your "Back to the Future" 1927-or-bust plan.

For those who are advocating the "Back to the Future" program, here's the two data points I'd like to see (it may not exist, I get that). Drop Outs Market research (properly done) on parents/scouts who DROP OUT OF THE PROGRAM. 1) Causes for dropping out (and if they self-offer that they "just wish things were like it were back in 1927", great!) 2) Offered solutions: "If we adopted the practices we had in 1927 (and spell out what those practices are) would you have stayed in scouting (for the scouts)/put your scout back in scouting (parents)?" Never Entered Market research (properly done) on parents and youth who NEVER ENTERED THE PROGRAM. 1) What caused you to not want to join? And ask directly whether the Scout's policies on homosexuals, girls, and God made a difference (either positively or negatively) 2) What if we changed our program to what it was in 1927 (and spell out what those practices are) would you be interested in joining (youth) or putting your child in such a program (parents)?

According to @Eagledad and others the reason fewer boys are joining is that the BSA program is no longer "pure", no longer what it was in 1927 or 1967 and therefore we need to go Back to the Future. I'm not 100% discounting that, but I think it is oversold. That would explain why, say, scouts (boys AND girls) are joining then dropping when they are exposed to a program that doesn't suit their needs. I'm suggesting that BSA's image regarding only allowing girls in after having fought for decades, only allowing homosexuals in after having fought for decades (including a Supreme Court battle in Dale), took a toll. Those young men (and woman) simply are not even showing up in the first place because Mom and Dad don't want anything to do with BSA. And the abuse scandal is compounding the problem.

Source? I'd like to see actual data on this. And the point is NOT that girls alone felt alienated but parents of boys AND girls won't sign their kids up. When my youngest was around Cub Scout age my family and I were at a town parade with 3 other families we knew from school. A local cub pack came marching by and the topic of joining Cubs came up. The other families in unison rejected it because "there's too much forcing religion" and the abuse scandal. Skip forward to today. My family is in scouts. Two of the other families go camping as a family often. The third is more sports focused, but the kid(s) are constantly in some kind of activity. The Scouts were/are looked at as adhering to intolerant, bigoted, outdated views. Meanwhile, the Gen X and Millennial generation are far more tolerant and will NOT put their kids in such a program. And the abuse scandal isn't helping this one bit, of course.

Based on what? Market research or just wishful thinking? EDIT: I'm not thinking people left because of it, but every indication is that new Gen X and Millennial parents did NOT sign up their kids to participate in an organization that looked out of touch and intolerant.

The problem that the shift to gain additional "market share" was dressed up as "effort to open opportunities" and NOT what it was, a desperate attempt to bolster numbers in an mad dash to avoid total membership collapse. It looks disingenuous. As I noted here As for the broaden, it gets to a real question that that traditionalists have never, ever answered. BSA membership is in freefall. Does the "Back to the Future" circa 1927 (or perhaps 1967) plan stem this? OR are the proponents simply accepting that the collapse of BSA membership is a given and the result is a much, much smaller but "pure" BSA?

I know the perfect solution! Let's go Back to the Future, turn the clock back to 1927, and pretend that the last century never happened. Let's pretend that the kids of the Depression Era (or the post World War II Baby Boomers?) remain the target audience. Therefore, let's simply go back to 1908 and Baden-Powell's Scouting for Boys, That will solve everything. A "pure" scouting from a bygone era will solve all problems.

Note the contradiction here. The girls membership policy no negative influence on membership...but was changed to increase membership. Wha? I think we need to just realize that some Scouters will never, ever listen a a female and/or anyone who isn't part of their old, antiquated, and dying system.

Those who are newer have no right to speak? No ideas to offer? Really? And we are to "humble" ourselves to you? No, thank you.

Yes, because BSA became identified as being socially out of touch and beholden to a bygone era in terms of homosexuality and girls-as-scouts. Even if some form of "pure" scouting from some bygone era returned (or never left), BSA's practices and policies up to and including the Supreme Court fight in Dale would have hobbled it. People can get the outdoor experience without having to be associated with practices and policies they view as "intolerance". And oh yeah, the abuse cases. Talk about "based on behavior". So BSA could have the most amazing, dynamic outdoor program on earth, and there's a large portion of the population who won't touch it with a 10 foot pole because of the 2-3 decades of bad PR. You've lost a generation. Maybe two. If I am a Gen X or Millennial parent and if I want my kids to have the outdoor experience, I can take them to the "parks and state and federal forests." I don't need to associate them with a group that is perceived of as being intolerant bigots with a pedophile problem. So, as my old boss use to say, what is the "value proposition" that BSA is offering? For a parent (and as much as we want scout/youth led it is the parent driving them places) what are you offering that I cannot get somewhere else?

I see. If you weren't a scout as a child, you have no right to speak? Tell that to the parents at your next unit meeting. See how that turns out. Only those who were born and raised in the One True Way may speak and make comment. All others are to remain silent. That's not an organization. That's a cult. And yes, the buggy whip is still perfectly functional for the scan few dozen (hundreds?) of buggies still operating. Or perhaps that's your point: we need to get back to "pure" scouting, which means a fraction of current membership. You aren't talking about designing a program for today's youth. You are talking about designing a throwback group to make Boomers happy and nostalgic for the "good old days".

My own objection is to the notion that taking a program from 1920, developed for a different populace and a VERY different nation and a different social and economic conditions, with different expectations and different family dynamics and superimposing that 1920 plan on to 2020 is simply asking for failure. But by all means, let's go Back to the Future, turn the clock back to 1927, and pretend that the last century never happened and that the kids of the Depression Era (or the post World War II Baby Boomers?) remain the target audience. Or perhaps even that is too much. Let's simply go back to 1908 and Baden-Powell's Scouting for Boys, In other words, let's turn the keys over to the Baden-Powell Scout Association?

I've never seen the "dismissal" of an SM. I've seen forced and shoved when the CC or parents (or both) have indicated they do not like what is going on. I've even seen an attempted palace coup (ASM approached Committee, in a meeting, and asked to take over as SM. That went well). But never a dismissal.

Lot of people here would rather a "pure" buggy whip to any kind of adaptation and modernization. If it worked for great-grandpa, it is good enough for the great-grand kids? We need to go Back to the Future (tm)