dkurtenbach

4 hours ago, WAKWIB said:

You can remove every barrier imaginable, and the increase in membership will be negligible (IMHO).  You can remove all  barriers and give all new recruits a bonus of $100, and you will still fall short of the 4 million that we had at peak.

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 barriers in the hope of reaching more youth with the elements of its program that would not have to change.  

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

6 hours ago, dkurtenbach said:

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?

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 program. Color, race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic background, disability, economic status or citizenship is not criteria for participation by youth or adults."

For its "traditional" programs (Cub Scouts, Boy Scouts, Venturing, Sea Scouts), the Boy Scouts of America has already removed almost all of the "participation criteria" on that list; most recently, sexual orientation and gender.  All that remains is removing religion as a criterion for participation, and the BSA will be able to adopt the Exploring non-discrimination statement for all of its programs.  The final departure of the LDS church as a significant chartered partner will eliminate the last practical barrier to BSA removing religion as a membership standard. 

Given the changes of the last few years, it seems inevitable that this last step will be taken soon, perhaps as early as 2020.  It will mean, at minimum, that any "duty to God" advancement requirements be moved from "required" to "elective" status, and that optional substitutions for "duty to God" in the Scout Oath and "Reverent" in the Scout Law will be adopted.

There will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth, and some people will leave, and some religious institutions will cease being chartered organizations.  The BSA corporate organization will breathe a sigh of relief that donors, schools, and government entities will no longer hesitate to deal with them.  And a large share of the membership and chartered organizations won't care, because for them Scouting is in the same category as soccer and piano lessons -- not a significant source of spirituality.  They will keep on with the business of promoting the ability of young people to do things for themselves and others, to train them in scoutcraft, and to teach them patriotism, courage, self-reliance, and kindred (secular) virtues.  

Fortunately, no one will stop believing in God, stop praying, stop reading scripture, stop attending religious services, or become confused about their moral standards because the BSA drops religion as a requirement.

35 minutes ago, The Latin Scot said:

NOW - what of the boy who visits my den (and this is not too uncommon) who isn't a believer at all? Well, first of all I explain to the parents that we are a Church-owned unit, and that religion will be explicitly taught at our meetings. They deserve to know that upfront. Second, I explain that Scouting is a religious organization but non-denominational, meaning I won't proselytize to their child, but he will be exposed to faith-building concepts. Then, I explain that to achieve ranks in Scouting, there will be religious requirements that will require their child to explore their spirituality, but always with a non-denominational, personal and private approach. If they are okay with all that, I welcome their child into the group. If the parents are not, I make it ABSOLUTELY CLEAR that their child will be LOVED and WELCOMED at our meetings, but that there will also be some parts of the advancement program that may prove challenging for the Scout if they are adamant in their unwillingness to at least investigate the idea of belief. That way, they can decide then and there is Scouting is right for them. If it is, great! If not, there are many other wonderful programs serving youth that might be a better fit for them.

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

39 minutes ago, Saltface said:

How would an atheist fulfill his duty to God or be reverent?

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.

2 minutes ago, Saltface said:

Jesus associated with sinners in an attempt to change them, not become one of them. Do you want to allow atheists into BSA for the express purpose of helping them find God? Sounds like a great idea.

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.

25 minutes ago, HashTagScouts said:

Unfortunately, this post above all else is the issue for me.  We cannot preach it is OK to only follow 7 points, 8 points, or 11 points of the Scout Law.  It is all.  Do we give an automatic boot? I would say no, but that does not mean advancement to the highest levels are possible for that youth.  From Life, requirement #2:  As a Star Scout, demonstrate Scout spirit by living the Scout Oath and Scout Law. Tell how you have done your duty to God and how you have lived the Scout Oath and Scout Law in your everyday life.

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 them even if their beliefs and customs are different from his own. . . . Friends are also able to celebrate their differences, realizing that real friends can respect the ideas, interests, and talents that make each person special."  When we turn people away from our program because their beliefs are different from our own, are we living up to this point of the Scout Law?

According to the Boy Scout Handbook, doing my duty to my country, as stated in the Scout Oath, means:  "Help the United States continue to be a strong and fair nation by learning about our system of government and your responsibilities as a citizen."  When we systematically exclude people from our program because of their religious beliefs, are we helping the United States to be "a strong and fair nation"?  Is isolating ourselves from people with different opinions one of our responsibilities as a citizen of the United States?

Even if we have the right, as a private organization, to exclude people who don't share one of our ideals, is voluntarily exercising that right consistent with the other ideals, purposes, goals, and duties we profess as members of the Scouting program? 

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 chartered organization that will support you in the way you'd like (it may or may not be the same CO as the friendly boys troop).  But be a separate troop with your own committee.  That will give you the freedom to shape the relationships you want. 

43 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

having Scouting from the Boy Scouts of America is a good thing for the youth of our country

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.

6 hours ago, ParkMan said:

But, if we really focused on building up district staffs, then you've got 20-30 people who could start making a real impact.  In my district I've started using the phrase "It's not about being a district volunteer, but about building Scouting in our community."  To me that's a pretty noble goal.

Similarly - think about the experience level of your volunteers.  Our DE is a wonderful guy with a lot of Scouting background.  Yet, even with that, if you look around at our leaders in the district and some of our larger units, you've got: lawyers, doctors, teachers, university professors, engineers, scientists - a remarkable range of fantastically skilled professionals.  That's a tremendous amount of potential available to build Scouting.

So, I think if you want to "fix" Scouting - you start here.  Membership is a direct reflection of unit program quality.  Strong units attract more Scouts & do better with retention.  You want better program, you need to focus on it.  The best way to focus on it is more front line support for units.  There isn't enough money in Scouting to pay a huge staff to do that.  So, you do it with strong district teams.  That's where you put your focus,

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 great Scouters move on to other interests outside of Scouting when their youth age out.  Those who stick around usually prefer to continue working in their units.  And very few have the time and inclination to be both active in their units and active at the district level. 

Instead of a large top-down district-level bureaucracy that constantly requires recruiting, almost all of what is considered district-level work could and should be located where the necessary Scouter labor force has already been recruited:  in the units, as collateral duties of the Chartered Organization Representative and two or three adult leaders and/or parents in the unit.  If you have 50 units in a district, that's 150 unit Scouters and parents available to work on district committees with rotating unit representation. 

That would include committees that review unit quality, performed much as camp assessments are now:  a small group of Scouters from different units visit every unit a couple of times a year, armed with a list of best practices (much like unit Journey to Excellence scoresheets).  In addition to ensuring that every unit's program is assessed regularly, this has the benefits of (a) letting Scouters see what other units are up to, and (b) making every unit acutely aware of expectations for program quality.

And that is one less separate Scouting bureaucracy that has to be staffed. 

8 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

Have you ever seen this done? 

Barry

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 be working with them to move the Scouts into another troop.  Then a miracle (the good kind) happened.  A big troop with a strong program and great leadership needed to part ways with its chartered organization (a Catholic school) after BSA's decision to admit gay youth.  A deal was struck, and the troops merged.  

In that instance, we had a supportive District Commissioner whose main interest was in doing what was best for the Scouts in the troop, rather than what was best for district statistics.  Usually what I have seen is the balance tipping in favor of keeping the unit on the books regardless of how weak its program was.

1 hour ago, allangr1024 said:

The council can revoke BSA membership if a crime has been committed, but it cannot and never has been able to judge the quality of a unit program or the competence of a Scout leader.  You are going to have to do some political miracle to pull that off, and fundamentally change Scouting forever.

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 with unit leadership, the Chartered Organization Representative, and maybe the head of the chartered organization about the unit program.

1 hour ago, carebear3895 said:

Our job is to grow scouting, not kill it. If the leaders aren't properly trained to run a functioning unit, that falls on both Professional and Commissioner shoulders.  If it's a leadership issue, you recruit new leaders.  Helping/Coaching a Unit in hopes that it will eventually grow into a successful program is a heck of a lot better for the kids than killing it and trying to restart it.

 Let me tell you, starting a unit from scratch is a lot harder to do now than it was even 5 years ago. 

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 better over a very long period.

1 hour ago, ParkMan said:

I've said before that one of the biggest failures of the BSA has been the way they have wasted the district concept.  The districts are the front line of the BSA in improving unit quality.  You want better quality units, you invest in stronger district teams.

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.

1 hour ago, ParkMan said:

It's not the role of the BSA to shut down those programs.  

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 down poorly performing units and sending those Scouts to units with quality programs.  

3 minutes ago, gblotter said:

Our moderate troop of 30 Scouts goes camping 10 times a year . . .

Next door is struggling troop with barely enough boys to maintain their charter . . .

Also nearby is a megatroop of 130+ Scouts. They go camping multiple times a month . . .

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 there is no improvement.  Corporate Scouting.

51 minutes ago, scoutldr said:

Speculations on what would cease to exist if  "National" went away and left it up to the Councils, as some are hoping for:

All program publications. Handbooks, MB pamphlets, forms, etc.

All National Supply items.  Uniforms, branded items, equipment.

Centrally developed and managed training programs.

National Jamboree

High Adventure bases, including Sea Base and Bechtel Reserve

Philmont

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 great unit Scouting programs, even if Councils went away too.

Just sayin'.

7 minutes ago, cocomax said:

currently all the girls I know (including my daughter) want to be Girl Scouts

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 their daughters will get them out in the field.

4 minutes ago, Setonfan said:

Always curious when this topic comes up, how National is de-emphasizing adventure-  Maybe it's just me, but with all of the new programs at each of the High Adventure bases, councils doing everything from cave exploring to climbing, whitewater, mountain biking, not to mention pistols, ATV's PWC's, ziplines, etc.  What exactly has National taken out of the program?  Other than sending patrols of boys off on their own for camping (while there are those that say it destroyed the patrol method, frankly, my troop in the 70's didn't allow that, and I haven't found any of my peers who have said their troop or parents were Ok with it either). 

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 was taking outdoor fun out of the program.  But I think what was really happening was that BSA was and continues to be encouraging outdoor adventure as much as ever, and providing great venues for it, but offering fewer incentives to Scouts to participate in outdoor adventure (fewer outdoor-related advancement requirements, less pyromaniac and tree-chopping fun) and more dis-incentives to leaders to participate in outdoor adventure (G2SS removing some activities, more training and certifications and approvals and experience and fitness required).