Tron

I can tell you all the following based on my knowledge of my district and council. Our linked troop plan was ok, but not optimal to bring females into the program due to the 5 girl minimum that has been enforced (my DE will not allow 3 female 3x3 units). My pack has crossed female scouts into the void for 7 years now. The females that did cross in my area were forced to cross to units that were not convenient to get to (long drives, bad meeting nights, etc ...) it seemed that all of the not so great units got linked troops first and then the district and council protected their first to the table status. Membership is going to tick up due to female retention, and to some degree brother of sister scout retention, simple rational logic; we're going from a system where female scouts had no path or a poor path to the troop level program to a literal buffet of troop choices. We're going to have better female retention and better female recruitment. My primary unit has become the strongest troop in the district and they were basically barred from having a female linked troop. We have run the numbers, we've talked with the families, and now that the unit charter won't get yanked the second someone ages out or moves we'll recharter in December as a Family Troop starting with 5 female scouts. In March we're picking up at least 2 crossovers. The 3 linked troops in my district have about half of their female membership commuting in from my town, we expect to get half of those scouts transferring in to our new Family Troop in 2026. The critical mass that this will create is already spreading through our local scouting community and we think before the end of 2027 we'll have somewhere between 12 and 20 female scouts in our troop. The downside is that we'll experience a considerable amount of cannibalization in 2026 as female associated scout families reset into their home communities. We are going to see some troops collapse and not recharter in 2027. Some troops that thought they had a good program because they were pulling in female scout families will have to face the fact that their program sucks but they were the only option for people. I spoke with a family this last week, they were ALL going to drop from the program due to their female scout struggling in the only option unit. They are going to stick it out for the Family Troop option. That's 4 registration that we were going to lose on Jan 1st that we're going to retain at least for 1 more year.

I think the rule might be or might have been that 18-20 is youth in the exploring/venturing/seascout programs so they qualify as youth and youth can wear rank badges.

My experience is that council doesn't do much more than get the final signature and send the package off to national. In my council everything is done at the district level, I am not even sure if we have more than a paper council advancement committee.

The cautionary tale is you have to have the boys troop(s) onboard with supporting the girl troop. I've witnessed girl troops fail to launch because they didn't have the support or planning in place in a timely manner and by the time resources are in place the girls have lost interest due to the interim s-show. If you do not want to be co-ed you should adopt the boys schedule of events for the 6-12 months to give the girls troop time to learn the process and get a plan. I'll echo Eagle with if I were a betting man I would bet on coed going live by February. I will say that my primary troop is setting up a plan for a linked troop right now for a small crop of female crossovers and our plan is if national doesn't authorized coed we're just going to have a linked troop that functions as a female patrol regardless of the situation in our first year. We're in a situation where most of the female scouts in our district are from our town but have been feeding out to towns 1, 2, or in a couple cases 3 towns over and once we get a female or coed troop up and running past our DE we know we're sucking the air out of the room because all of the parents have voiced that they are sick of driving so much.

What I am seeing with troops above the "32" scout headcount is that they seem like they are doing great on paper but once you get so big a lot of scouts start to fall through the cracks. Scouts with parents who have stepped up into a scouter role always achieve and advance at their personal optimal rate but the bigger the troop the more the scouts without a scouter parent start to fall back and not advance at their optimal rate. My primary unit is very large these days and I've really noticed that the older scouts who are stuck at Tenderfoot or less are all scouts without a scouter parent. We have some really good leaders that are trying to help as many scouts as possible but there is literally only so much capacity in each person to help so many scouts. Right on. I've worked with troops that do the age based and the mix patrols, and the age based for a couple years and then mixed patrols. I had a really bad experience with a mixed age patrol troop and ever since them I am not cool with the structure; toss in the safeguarding rules and it just works better for scouts to be in age based patrols in this era. I like this PL/APL stance. Too many troops only have the PL involved in the PLC.

I see what is going on here now. This is being redone based on the demographics of the people surveyed in the first study in 2023. Check out the demographics of the people surveyed in the Scouting Edge study; there are 3 chart slides squeezed on to 1 and a half pages of the study in the appendex. The 2023 study was basically a random subset of the whole national population; they probably wanted that to be a marketing survey to see how to capture new or emerging markets (especially when you notice that the non-white male population was under represented in that study based on who historically and currently dominates the membership ranks of Scouting America). This new study is about Alumni and current membership. So in the R3 cycle of membership they did the Recruit emphasized on emerging markets, this is probably the Re-engage or Retain stage of the R3 cycle.

Dude, a lot of what you have been posting just cumulatively sounds like the troop wants to do things a certain way to throttle back higher achieving scouts.

So sounds like Scouting America is trying to determine if their core/base membership has changed. I wonder if this is going to be aggregated to council level or something else. I would love to see this data and compare it to my geographic area.

The big change happened in 2020/2021 ish with the charter language being updated due to CO's liquidating units to take the resources for themselves. My opinion is increasingly becoming that council boards and district executives prefer it this way and are avoiding engaging the CORs. In my council I find this to be the case but it is the OA's fault as they have an inner circle of <insert non-scout language here> that block everything from happening that they can't take credit for or can't control that has anything to do with the council growing or modernizing.

This is so crazy. The last BOR I sat on was literally done like this "Little Billy needs a BOR, he doesn't care that he's going to miss part of the troop meeting; Mr. Tron are you available to sit on his BOR?" me "Absolutely. I'll be right there."

What sort of questions are they asking in this survey?

Seems pretty standard in some of the councils.

This was sort of known after the other vote failed. There is another council in NY merging in as well.

They're all still doing that from what I can tell, they are just not publishing them to the websites. My council will give you their plan if you ask for it but otherwise it's off the radar.

Why is this being driven by the committee chair? At the troop level the advancement coordinator is responsible for arranging boards of review. Additionally, though not the best option, a board of review can be staffed by parents, people from the community, basically anyone with some knowledge of the process that is not a member of the scoutmaster corps.

I wonder if this has anything to do with the wrongful death lawsuits from that range incident a couple years ago?

I would expand on this and have them discuss how their already good LNT habits have limited waste.

The module is just horrible. It fails constantly, leaders hate taking it because of stupid stuff like the soda can, and now that it's mandatory there's no way to know if your compliance is expiring without writing down when your renewal date is.

I don't think this matters. If seascouts can use nights slept on water why can't other scouts? Why would there be a double standard?

Saw your other post. At a district level event it would be the same as a council event, NCAP variances apply.

Does the troop have written expectations of positions of responsibility? Are there APL's that can step in for the sick and uninterested?

I would advise you to chase this as a program improvement point and not a punitive point. Raising it such as "I am concerned that without proper messaging and clarity the camping variance from the council event that our CC utilized might be viewed as allowed outside an NCAP environment. We don't want to normalize the view that we can just camp with who we want when we want. I want to make sure that in order to follow Safeguarding and the GTSS we understand that unit level camping outside of an NCAP regulated event doesn't allow this." versus "CC did this and I don't think we should allow it. What are we going to do to prevent this from happening again?"

Normally no. If this were a joint unit event outside of an NCAP environment she would need at least 2 leaders and 2 scouts from the Scouts BSA program level (preferably all from the same unit). But under a council event that is NCAP regulated there are all kinds of variances.

I see this, even with my own kids; I am constantly telling them no voice-to-text is allowed which forces them to have to spell at least. We're seeing some gap issues at the troop level still but we've undone the damage done at the pack level (Just instituting correction in the program from an adult standpoint). We're one and a half years out from the last covidish era patrol aging out, I suspect if we keep focusing on instituting the program properly on these successive crossover patrols we'll eliminate all of the problems as well. For skits one of the things I have noticed is that if we give scouts advanced notice and remind them to have something in the pocket for a fireside program they come prepared, if we ask them on the campout to have something they go right to the struggle bus.

I just looked at how Scouting America describes the sailing adventure options on the Seabase website and I would say that it does count towards 9a and 9b.