dkurtenbach

Ten years ago, every barrier was in place and BSA had a recent Supreme Court decision affirming its right to have those barriers. Yet its long, steady membership slide was continuing. Despite the marketing slogan, “America is returning to the values Scouting never left,” America was not returning to Scouting. BSA had the choice of doing nothing, with no reason to believe the decline would stop, much less that it would ever grow again. Or it could change its program (such as by becoming more religion-oriented) to try to grow by drawing more youth inside the barriers. Or it could remove barr

The Scout Oath (not Oaths) is very clear: " . . . and to obey the Scout Law . . . "

To be more precise, a small troop only large enough for one patrol (say, 6 to 10 Scouts) versus a larger troop with multiple patrols of that same size (6 to 10 Scouts). If each troop is executing the patrol method, does a larger patrol method troop have any advantages over the smaller patrol method troop in giving the youth an effective Scouting program?

If your troop is executing the patrol method as depicted in the presentation, is there really any added value in having more patrols in the troop? That is, shouldn't a one-patrol troop be just as effective as a six-patrol troop?

And this will happen because we were not secure in our faith. Rather than being open and inviting to non-believers -- as our Scouting principles demanded --- we took the path of fear. We failed to trust that God would have a way. We thought that we could do a better job of protecting faith than God could.

The Exploring career education program is part of Learning for Life, an affiliate of the Boy Scouts of America. Exploring posts and clubs are supported by BSA councils in much the same way as Scouting / Venturing units. This is the Exploring non-discrimination statement from the "About Us" page of the Exploring.org website: "Exploring programs are designed for all age groups starting at 10 and not yet age 21. Youth participation is open to any youth in the prescribed age group for that particular program. Adults are selected by the participating organization for involvement in the progr

And that is the model I am talking about. Thank you.

An atheist couldn't. But he'd have the chance to see duty to God in action, to think about it, maybe even give it a try. A dedicated atheist who knows we aren't changing anything in our program probably won't walk through that door we open. But a less dedicated atheist might. If he does, we don't know what will happen; but we know that one possibility, however remote, is that he'll give God a chance. Right now we're denying him that opportunity.

As I said, I'm talking about admission of atheists to the existing program. What they choose to do in the program once they are in the door is up to them -- but at least we would be giving them the chance to learn and follow the Scout Oath and all 12 points of the Scout Law. I'm not talking about changing the program, the words of the Oath, or the words of the Law, or doing anything else to accommodate atheists or any other interest group. Just opening the door and inviting them to join us -- on our terms. You know, like Jesus did.

15While Jesus was having dinner at Levi’s house, many tax collectors and sinners were eating with him and his disciples, for there were many who followed him. 16When the teachers of the law who were Pharisees saw him eating with the sinners and tax collectors, they asked his disciples: “Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?” 17On hearing this, Jesus said to them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” Mark 2:15-17.

I'm talking about admission of atheists to the existing program. What they choose to do in the program once they are in the door is up to them -- but at least we would be giving them the chance to learn and follow the Scout Oath and all 12 points of the Scout Law. That is something we are denying them now.

According to the Boy Scout Handbook, "A Scout is helpful. . . . Scouts want the best for everyone and act to make that happen." How can we justify excluding anyone from the Scouting program if it would be good for them? If we want the best for everyone, doesn't that naturally include membership in Scouting? Isn't the point of being helpful to focus on the needs of others rather than just our own comfort? According to the Boy Scout Handbook, "A Scout is friendly. A Scout is a friend to all. . . . He offers his friendship to people of all races, religions, and nations, and he respects th

Unless you're looking for a close relationship with the boys troop -- some shared meeting time (openings and closings), joint campouts and activities, etc. -- I'd suggest avoiding a shared committee. A shared committee with the majority of the committee members from the boys troop is quite naturally going to be trying to fit the girls troop into the boys troop way of doing things. If you're looking more at being a "cousin" troop than a "sister" troop, find a boys troop where the adults will be happy to help you get on your feet, consult, train, share equipment, etc. At the same time, find a

The way I'm feeling with this latest news, I'd almost say, "Saving Scouting from [the grips of] the Boy Scouts of America is a good thing for the youth of our country." Maybe one outcome of this situation could be a restructuring that would reduce the national organization to a property-holding shell, with policy guidelines developed instead by a conference of Councils, and each Council able to adapt based on local conditions. That would give us plenty of room to experiment (Council by Council) and allow us to avoid sudden massive nationwide policy shifts.

ParkMan, thanks. The BSA organizational model is for a top-heavy district with committees for Finance (including Friends of Scouting and Popcorn), Membership, Program (including Activities, Camping, Training, and Advancement), plus Roundtable Commissioners, plus enough Unit Commissioners that they have an average of no more than three units each. And that doesn't include the adult support for the Order of the Arrow chapter. The model is another example of an unnecessary bureaucracy. And it is counter-intuitive. Most Scouters get involved in Scouting to work with youth in units. Many grea

We were most of the way through the process with a very small, struggling troop. It was difficult for the SM and Committee Chair, who had founded the troop and wanted to keep it going, even though they knew things were not happening as they had planned or hoped. The Chartered Organization was not particularly hands-on, and had lost an Explorer Post previously. They pretty much would go along with whatever the unit decided. We had just had a meeting with the parents to let them know that the troop would likely be folding unless there were some big changes, and if it was shutting down we'd b

No miracles required. Local control. The experienced local volunteers who serve as commissioners and committee members are able to assess the quality of a unit program and the competence of a Scout leader. All that would be required to shut down a unit with a long history of poor program is that the unit not recharter. And you get to that with a series of conversations with the unit leadership, the Chartered Organization Representative, the Scouts, the families, and the head of the chartered organization. Of course, that is going to be after a couple of years' worth of prior conversations

Please see my response to ParkMan. The one exception I would see to shutting down a chronically poorly-performing unit is where that unit is the only game in town, such as a rural area. In that case, the only way to provide those youth a Scouting experience is to keep the unit alive and provide whatever resources are available. (NOTE: The size of a unit is not an indicator of the quality of the unit's program.) But in a suburban area like mine with a dozen troops and packs within three miles that the youth can go to, there is really no excuse for nursing along a unit that has not gotten b

I agree that districts are the front line in improving unit quality. But you can't always invest in stronger district teams. At any particular time, you have the District Executive and the volunteers that you have, and you can't wait to address a problem for the years it will take to develop a stronger corps of unit commissioners and committee members. Well, if there is a concern about program integrity, program quality, and the future damage to the program's recruiting efforts by adults recounting their poor experiences in the BSA program, then BSA should be seeking out and shutting

Concur that program delivery varies widely among units. In my view, consistently anemic units with poor programs that go on year after year are the single greatest long-term threat to Scouting. Why? Because adults who had a poor Scouting experience as youth won't put their kids in the program, and neither will their friends and family members. Yet because shutting down an ineffective unit will look bad on this year's district and council membership statistics, district and council officials won't even consider it; they will even nurse the unit along each year at recharter time even though

So, given that there are already plenty of program publications, training syllabi, merit badge pamphlets, uniforms, handbooks, etc. already in circulation -- not to mention all of the creative program material and guidance that Scouters have been posting on the internet for the last couple of decades -- and given the existence of patch companies, outfitters, local / regional / state / national parks, privately owned campgrounds, farms, climbing gyms, caves, etc., and individual creativity and handicraft skills, . . . . . . we wouldn't be losing anything that could hamper the delivery of

The Boy Scouts of America national organization is not the Scouting Movement, nor are the local councils. The Scouting Movement is made up of the youth and their volunteer leaders out there in the schools and church basements and hiking trails and canoes and food pantries and local parades. Families join local troops and packs because they are drawn in by the good reports of their friends and neighbors and a yearning to do something meaningful. Scouting existed in America well before the Boy Scouts of America was incorporated. Maybe this is an opportunity to remember that Scouting does

Between two and five years from now we'll find out if BSA's gambit worked. The number of girls crossing over from Cub Scouts will tell us.

While we would like to get a lot of moms who already have outdoor skills, we don't need them to have the outdoor skills immediately. As with many dads who come into Scouting with little or no outdoor experience, and pick those skills up right along with their sons from camping and outdoor veterans, moms will learn alongside their daughters, most likely (in the beginning) from men with Scout camping experience who volunteer to help out in the girl troop. For now, we need to sign the moms up as female adult leaders in girl troops for YPT purposes. Get them signed up to just be there, and thei

Having thought about this over the years, and having noticed what you have noticed, I think what happened is that BSA began watering down outdoor-related advancement requirements, particularly in the Tenderfoot through First Class ranks (maybe to encourage more rapid advancement to First Class), began moving away from high-impact camping practices (lots of fun, little thought required) to environmentally friendly practices (more thinking and planning necessary), and began adding safety-related restrictions in the Guide to Safe Scouting. Together, these shifts created the impression that BSA w