dkurtenbach

On 12/14/2019 at 10:42 PM, desertrat77 said:

The folks that designed the Venturing program put a lot thought into it.  I'm still impressed by how great Venturing could be.   Unfortunately, because of the factors you've mentioned, we rarely see Venturing live up to its potential.

Youth join Venturing to do something fun, personally challenging, and different from the usual activities available to teenagers.  Our district had a crew that focused on shooting (with training and a shooting event on the same weekend each month) and a high adventure activity each summer.  The crew grew -- until the shooting events became inconsistent and then occasional.  And the crew died a slow death.  Even though a Venturing crew (1) should be at a higher level of youth-run than a troop, and (2) isn't burdened by a core program dictated by BSA National, it still needs a self-determined long-term, consistent, fun, and challenging core program that gives the youth members a purpose, that provides an avenue for personal growth and expertise, and that attracts new youth to the crew.

3 hours ago, ParkMan said:

Where this gets tricky is in how you compare the criteria against other aspects of the program. 

For example - what's better:

• a troop with 20 nights of camping at the same local campsite, but all planned and executed by Scouts
• a troop with 20 nights of camping of varying types and at interesting locations, but where adults are doing some of the planing.

Where I struggle with the idea of giving commissioner's the power to enforce change.  What makes a commissioner's judgement any better than the unit leaders?   A troop decides it wants to be a backpacking troop - the unit commissioner disagrees.  Who wins?

Again - I'm all for creating a clearer set of expectations for what a successful program looks like.  I think this is a wonderful idea.  Such expectations can then be used to hold roundtable discussions with unit leaders and can form the basis of more advanced training.  i.e., what are effective ways to educate scouts on how to plan and execute camping trips.

But, creating a system where we try to institute some sort of top down control of units seems problematic.  I'm dubious on the idea for commissioners to have that authority.  I sudder at the idea for professionals to have that authority.

 

I don't think there would be any option but to select program elements that are considered universal (things every unit at that program level -- Cub Scouts, Scouts BSA, Venturing, Sea Scouts -- should be doing regardless of geographic location, unit size, girls/boys, etc.) and can be objectively measured (are they doing it yes/no; how many; how long) so that the criteria are not subject to interpretation or judgment calls.  Then sort that list into levels, as @DuctTape described, from basic to advanced.  Then select a finite number of those elements as the ones that will be used as indicators of program quality.  In making those selections, there will have to be some judgments made about what to include and what not to include, and there will be elements considered significant that will be left out just because the list is too long or because it is difficult to pin down an objective measure or to decide how much or how many indicates quality (What distance to a campground is considered "local"?  What ratio of local to non-local camping is considered adequate for a good program? What if the unit camps at a local campground overnight but goes off to interesting places for adventures during the day?).  

4 minutes ago, DuctTape said:

The JTE is not at all what I am envisioning as it is simply a checklist. There is no quality continuum. There is a vast difference between a troop that has 20 camping nights a year all planned and executed by the adults where the scouts basically show up unload stuff from the trailer and maybe cook their own food. vs a troop whose patrols plan independent camping trips on their own (in accordance with ypt) where each patrol member is responsible for some aspect such as patrol qm getting/returning gear from the troop qm. 

You're right, but I see those as separate program elements, each with its own performance criteria:

1. How many nights does the troop together do short-term camping?
2. Does each patrol (other than a New Scout patrol) go on independent overnight camping trips without the rest of the troop?  How many nights?
3. Do the adult leaders and senior youth leaders train other youth leaders on how to plan and execute camping trips and other outings? 
4. Are trained youth leaders actually in charge of planning and executing camping trips and other outings?

If not broken down into separate program elements, there are too many variables at play to get a good assessment of performance.  If nights camping was the only metric, it wouldn't tell you much.  But break it down and you can get a much better picture of a troop's performance.

But now that I think about it some more, there is one simple alternative that could do the job without either a top-down district review of a unit program or intensive training for unit leaders:  Put all of the performance standards into advancement requirements.  It is the one collection of guidance that everyone in the unit pays attention to.

The requirements would be re-written not to make them more difficult for Scouts, but to make the unit work harder to provide the opportunities for advancement.  For example:  "From your Patrol Scribe, obtain a copy of the Patrol Calendar showing the dates for at least twenty nights of short-term camping by the troop and at least five nights of summer camp in the next 12 months.  Give a copy of this calendar to your parent(s) or guardian(s), and talk to them about putting those campouts and summer camp on the family calendar."  For the Scout, this is an easy requirement -- get a copy of the patrol calendar and talk about it with his or her parents.  But the patrol has to have a Patrol Scribe and a patrol calendar, and the troop has to have a rolling 12-month calendar with at least 20 nights of weekend camping and a summer camp scheduled.  Do the same sort of thing for every program element that we think matters.  For the individual Scout, the requirements will have a comparable level of difficulty to the requirements we have now.  But the unit will have to have good structure, procedures, and practices in place to support the ability of the Scout to complete the requirements.

51 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

The solution to the problem isn't yet more docs - it's getting people into roles who can make local training and coaching happen. 

We absolutely need more effective training and coaching that is proactive in going out to units and is easily accessible to units who have questions and needs.  And we need fewer and simpler publications and materials so that it is a lot easier for unit Scouters to find the information they need. 

2 minutes ago, DuctTape said:

Agreed. It should not be used as a ranking system, but one for self-evaluation. UCs could help with the self-eval and then provide training and support to help the unit improve. 

Sadly, that is exactly the system we have right now.  Unit commissioners are supposed to work with unit leadership to prepare (and write up) a thorough unit assessment in Commissioner Tools, and then provide training and support to help the unit improve.  But there are no consequences for a unit that doesn't accurately evaluate itself or doesn't cooperate at all.  There are only consequences for the district (in the form of the district's Journey to Excellence rating) if the unit assessments don't get entered into the system by the end of the year.  Which means that you'll get a lot of unit assessments in which the unit did not participate and which involve a lot of guessing.

If we want to put a floor under unit quality, there has to be an effective review by an objective evaluator.  There has to be someone at the district level who has the authority to tell each unit where it stands in relationship to a set of objective standards, what the unit needs to do if it falls short, and what happens if the unit doesn't improve.  

If you don't want an inspection-type system like that, the only alternative is to have significantly ramped-up training requirements for unit Scouters so that the quality standards we need are drilled into them.  But no one wants that, either.

A core problem we have that contributes to wide variations in unit quality is a lack of official performance standards for units:  a single, accepted set of objective measurements covering every major aspect of unit program and operations.  When unit quality is simply a matter of personal opinion, it is hard to convince anyone that something needs to be done.  On the other hand, if you can point to a set of requirements that tells you whether a unit passes or fails and why, then the unit and commissioners and coaches can quickly zero in on problem areas and identify what assistance is needed.

Another aspect of Scouting that fits with this appeal to the epic and heroic is the idea of the uniform of service.  No, not food service.  Not the uniform of sports or the uniform of parade and ceremony.  Rather, a working uniform like the ones that we see on our servant-heroes -- firefighters, police, military, EMTs.  The kind of uniform that you have to earn by facing and overcoming challenges.  The kind that says, I know how to help you, I know how to do things that ordinary people can't do, you can count on me.  

3 minutes ago, carebear3895 said:

No...they can't. What you are talking about is a CO abiding by the guide to safe scouting and ensuring YPT policies. Nothing says a unit should get should get shut down by the council for running a poor program. 

They can, but they don't.  There's nothing in the Annual Unit Charter Agreement that limits the chartered organization's obligations to following safety policies, and nothing that excludes performance issues.  Granted, many (if not all) councils would consider it unthinkable to exercise the power to shut down a unit for something as trivial as poor performance.  Which is why poorly-performing units persist as obstacles to membership recruitment and retention.

11 minutes ago, carebear3895 said:

You can't do that with the Chartered Organization structure. Councils (and thus council volunteers/pros) do not, and should not, have the authority to shut down or merge units. 

In the Annual Unit Charter Agreement, chartered organizations agree to (among other things): "Conduct the Scouting program consistent with BSA rules, regulations, and policies."  If a chartered organization is not living up to its end of the bargain, the council can decide not to recharter the unit.  So yes, the council can shut a unit down and make arrangements for its members to transfer to another unit.  

1 minute ago, mrkstvns said:

I'm not sure you're really making a valid point.

When I look around town at all those "other" youth groups, it seems that they're focused on "fun" things like sports, STEM, karate (mostly sports though).  

It's really camping, hiking, paddling and high adventure outdoor activities that separate scouting from everything else.

Sure, the church youth group does camping once a year as part of their retreat ---- but it's never their focus. Sports teams?  They NEVER camp. Ditto with all the activities that center around school-related things like STEM or theatre.

Camping etc. *IS* the "different kind of appeal" that troops (or packs or crews) can leverage to differentiate themselves.

My point is that camping, etc. are just different kinds of fun activities.  If your appeal is to a youth's interest in having fun by offering them fun activity type (C), you are directly competing with the fun offered by other organizations doing activity types (A), (B), (D), (E), (F), and so on.  That's fine -- youth have lots of different likes when it comes to fun activities.  I'm suggesting that to really set Scouting apart, offering just another type of fun activity isn't enough.  You have to go beyond the youth's interest in doing something fun.  You have to appeal to some other interest of the youth that aligns with what Scouting offers.  The interest I suggest appealing to is the desire to be a hero.

If all you are offering are fun activities (camping, making s'mores, high adventure trips), then you are competing with every other fun activity available to boys in your town.  (It looks like you don't have a girls troop.)  You have to have a different kind of appeal.  I'm not talking about "character" -- no one ever joined Scouts to have their character developed.  What do 10-, 11-, and 12-year old boys have in abundance?  Imagination.  What kinds of games do they play?  Games where they can be heroes.  Show them that as Scouts, they can become local heroes almost immediately through the contributions they make to the community through their service (and have fun doing it of course -- like when they pull big tires out of the water during a stream cleanup).  And show them that as Scouts, they will develop knowledge, skills, and abilities that other guys will not have -- and that will make it possible for them to be heroes in emergency situations, like firefighters and EMTs and Coast Guard members.  And that they can develop the skills and courage that, as adults, can lead them to even more extraordinary things, like walking on Mars, or saving an endangered species.  You have to show them that as Scouts, they can change the world.  

But you have to have a troop program that (1) provides frequent highly visible and significant public service in the community in a way that develops expertise of some kind, such as environmental cleanup or wildlife protection, and (2) that focuses on skills like first aid, emergency response, survival, climbing, and lifesaving.  You'll still do all the camping and cooking and merit badge earning, but as part of a bigger vision.

Scouts change the world.

1 minute ago, RememberSchiff said:

Self-inflicted.  Local Councils once had Neighborhood Commissioners whose job was just that and had they had the  power to make corrections with no reluctance about confrontation.  

So very true.  Somewhere along the way, someone decided that unit commissioners would be "friends" of the units and could only try to persuade with words, not arm-twisting, and would be "doctors" of the units but could only diagnose, not treat.  But you can't have all units meet at least a minimum quality standard without the power to fix things in units, and if necessary, shut them down or merge them.  Perhaps this initiative will take the pressure off district officials to keep units on the rolls regardless of their condition.  

There used to be a commissioner publication, Commissioner Helps for Packs Troops and Crews, No. 33618, that actually listed performance standards for units in 38 categories.  I think the last edition may have been 2011.  It would be a good starting place for "Start, Stop, Continue" coaching discussions with units.

The "most notable changes" from the web page:

• District functions will be narrowed and re-focused on building strong units through two things only: coaching, and recruitment/membership support.
• All other current district committee members will be invited to be part of a centralized council committee - activities, advancement, camping, communications, FOS, OA, popcorn, roundtables, or training.
• All 16 district boundaries will shift to create 13 new Scouting districts that coincide with school districts.

That first point really gets to the heart of what is (in my opinion) the single greatest problem for BSA:  unit program quality.  All Scouting is local -- recruitment of new Scouts, the program provided to Scouts that leads to desired outcomes, and retention of Scouts through interesting/challenging/fun activities.

The slide presentation linked from the web page has a set of "Findings," including:

• Commissioner role is not commonly understood; Approach to unit service varies in performance and effectiveness
• Not all units are healthy – and we want them to be
• Units are looking for increased support in recruiting youth and parents/volunteers 

While it is easy to say that these findings are obvious to anyone paying attention, what is striking is that so many people are apparently paying attention.

On 11/29/2019 at 9:53 PM, dkurtenbach said:

I suggest the following topics:  . . .

• What Every New Scouts BSA Member Has A Right To Expect From The Troop

On 11/30/2019 at 7:01 PM, MattR said:

I can read this too many ways. What problem is this going to help with? Scouts that go along with anything, get bored and drop out? Scouts and parents that think scouts is webelos 3? Adult led troops? As an aside, the phrase Right to Expect sounds a bit confrontational. I mean, there are expectations of the scout as well.

This is all about the troop's obligation to have a complete, well-rounded Scouting program.  We used to have a catch phrase -- "Delivering the Promise" -- that is, making sure that Scout leaders actually provide the type of program that BSA committed to provide to youth.  All of the Handbooks talk in one way or another about what a youth can expect from Scouting, but I think the Eleventh Edition of the Boy Scout Handbook (1998), page 1, said it in a concise and straightforward way (bold emphasis in original):

WELCOME TO THE BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA

SCOUTING promises you the great outdoors.  As a Scout, you can learn how to camp and hike without leaving a trace and how to take care of the land.  You'll study wildlife up close and learn about nature all around you.  There are plenty of skills for you to master, and you can teach others what you have learned.  Everyone helping everyone else--that's part of Scouting, too.

SCOUTING promises you friendship.  Members of the troop you join might be boys you already know, and you will meet many other Scouts along the way.  Some could become lifelong friends.

SCOUTING promises you opportunities to work toward the Eagle Scout rank.  You will set positive goals for yourself and then follow clear routes to achieve them.

SCOUTING promises you tools to help you make the most of your family, your community, and your nation.  The good deeds you perform every day will improve the lives of those around you.  You will be prepared to help others in time of need.

SCOUTING promises you experiences and duties that will help you mature into a strong, wise adult.  The Scout Oath and the Scout Law can guide you while you are a Scout and throughout your life.

Adventure, learning, challenge, responsibility--the promise of Scouting is all this and more.  Are you ready for the adventure to begin?  Then turn the page and let's get started.

On 11/28/2019 at 10:24 AM, jjlash said:

Part of creating a movement is gathering like-minded people and creating momentum.  I suggest that we already have like-minded people and the start of momentum.  We, in this forum, are already thinking about these things.  We have already identified challenges that are quite universal.  And we certainly have the depth and breadth of experience to tackle the issues as well as any district team.

So - my proposal is that we brainstorm to pick an issue or two, and create some training or an awareness presentation or whatever, that we can all take home and use. 

I suggest the following topics:  

• Showing Your Community That They Need Scouts
• What Every New Scouts BSA Member Has A Right To Expect From The Troop
• What To Do If Your Unit Is Failing

6 minutes ago, carebear3895 said:

This is exactly the reason Districts and DE's exist. To help link you to resources and help answer all of your questions. 

Sometimes, sure.  But not for things like these, unless the district keeps a pretty detailed Subject Matter Expert directory.  Besides, "self-reliance" is one of the three virtues specifically identified in the BSA Congressional Charter.

Of all the causes for under-performing units, motivated leaders having difficulty obtaining necessary program skills should never be one of those causes. 

I don't think it is a failure of training courses or training frameworks; BSA position training courses (at least over the last few decades) have always been in the nature of an introduction and overview.  The "Trained" patch means "I sat through a training course," not "I have the knowledge and skills I need for the job."  Rather, a lot of program skills were and are acquired from veteran Scouters in the unit and at supplemental training or gatherings.  

But what can we do to help Scouters who need program skills but don't have experienced people right there in the unit that they can learn from over time?  While new methods and forms of "live" training and advice certainly can't hurt, new structures or organizations take time and resources to develop.  What leaders may need is more of an "on demand" training resource.  I don't think the solution is complicated:  (1) Find out if any of your unit parents have any  relevant experience or training; (2) research Scouting publications and the internet; and (3) ask other leaders for in-person help at a Roundtable or through the district email list, newsletter, or Facebook page ("I need to learn wood tools skills so I can teach Totin' Chip.  I'm looking for someone to train me and a place to practice."  "Want to do first aid skill stations for a Webelos den meeting and need some ideas on how to do it.  Anyone I can talk to about it?"  "I suck at knots and want to get a lot better.  Looking for a tutor."  "Have a pack overnighter coming up.  Forty people - Cubs and parents.  Need someone to give me advice and suggestions for cooking breakfast and supper for the group.")

District- and council-level bureaucrats are entirely dependent on units, unit Scouters, unit parents, and unit Scouts.  Units do the recruiting.  Scouts join units.  Unit programs make retention possible.  Unit Scouters and parents provide FOS money.  Unit Scouters take training.  Unit Scouters and parents recharter existing units, keeping them alive, and form new units.  Units go camping and provide advancement and carry out service projects.  In short, nearly every measure of performance for districts and councils and the district and council volunteers and professionals comes from units.  The only thing that districts/councils control are approvals of various kinds.  As long as units get their paperwork in correctly and on time and send in FOS money, they won't have problems with approvals and won't be bothered much.  Savvy unit leaders will insulate the other Scouters, parents, and Scouts and screen the many requests for units and individuals to help the district or council out with this or that activity or need.  Yes, districts and councils do provide some needed expertise from time to time, and some optional services and programs, but that doesn't change the dependency balance.

Ironically, it is BSA National, not the local districts and councils, that can really mess with units.  BSA National controls the scope and content of unit program and they regularly roll out program changes large and small that require unit Scouters to re-learn and re-tool, and some program changes that result in the loss of units and the formation of new units.

The point is, units that survive BSA National program changes, or come into existence as a result of those changes -- and their unit Scouters, parents, and Scouts -- control the fate of Scouting in America.  

The formula for volunteer engagement has not changed.  When followed, it is as powerful as ever, as we can see in strong units with lots of active volunteers.  Adults spend their time and energy and resources on things that they value.  What do they value?

• Activities that are fun for their kids, especially if the activities have some greater value.
• Activities that are fun for the particular adult, especially if the activities have some greater value that is understandable to whoever that adult reports to (spouse, significant other, boss, children).
• Activities that are not really fun but that are necessary because they have a what the particular adult sees as significant value.

The first two are the ones that draw them in and keep them.  Without the first two, the third one is not enough to motivate a parent.

If the unit program doesn't appeal to the kids, you probably aren't going to get the parents.  So a fun program for the youth is the threshold.  Then, the adult has to see Scouting as having some greater value; but we can't depend on adults just knowing what Scouting is or why it matters today -- we have to show it.  And then adults have to see that they can have fun with Scouting too:  friends in the unit; special activities for adults at campouts; fun skill activities for the adults where they can learn the same skills the Scouts are learning; things that they can enjoy doing; and things in which they, too, can make a difference.  And when adults are having fun and feel like they are making a difference, they will want to do more.

The most likely scenario is perhaps the scariest:  A big financial settlement of sexual abuse claims (perhaps including some property sales), some slimming down of corporate BSA operations to reduce costs, and more bad publicity; but otherwise BSA remains intact with the same top-down organizational structure, and there are no changes that affect the program.  BSA doesn't collapse, there are no dramatic shake-ups, and no heroes swoop in to save us.  At the local level, we will still face the same problems and weaknesses we have now, and are no closer to fixing them.  That is what we should really be worried about.

@MattR can expand on what he's thinking.  I'd suggest putting heads together with the district training chair, district commissioner, and unit commissioners.  Commissioner publications have some great material on unit difficulties and how to approach them.  Then a survey of unit leaders about specific issues and problems they would like more information and suggestions on.  And a review of topics discussed in forums likes this.  From that collection of information, work with the training chair and commissioner corps on a series of, say, ten 20-minute sessions on "hard discussions for unit Scouters."  Repeat and supplement them on different dates and different forums -- Saturday morning hikes, campfire discussions at camporees, discussions in conjunction with service projects.  Maybe even put them on YouTube or podcasts.

Scouts change the world.

9 hours ago, MattR said:

As for the adult method, the adults don't understand the program. The program is how the methods lead to the aims and we know how well that's taught. So teach it. Next, it's easy for a troop to get in a rut. I have never seen any training from the BSA that describes typical problems and how to solve them. They only teach skills that you have to do. So there are no case studies in how to fix a failing troop. Many people here say there are plenty of good units and I agree, but there are a lot more mediocre units. JTE was supposed to help those units. It hasn't and it won't. Giving people metrics won't teach them how to solve their problems. 

Lots of great stuff in this post by @MattR.  I picked this one because supplemental training, Roundtable sessions, campfire discussions, district newsletter articles, parking lot conversations, etc. are things that we can do right now without altering official training syllabi or training schedules or making program changes.  All we have to do is just take the initiative and start talking to other Scouters about typical problems with leader training and program quality, and how to solve them.

Scouts change the world.

1 hour ago, Navybone said:

 I believe the image of the actual scout and what they are learning remains positive and strong.  And that is where BSA needs to be focusing its PR campaign.  

Concur.  The image of Scouts themselves may be the only thing untarnished by the issues and controversies of the last several years.  That is why the message we put out to the world should not mention the Boy Scouts of America or the institution of "Scouting."  Scouts, Scouts, Scouts . . . young men and young women . . . future leaders, future heroes.

Scouts change the world.

22 hours ago, walk in the woods said:

So a number of random thoughts, most of them pessimistic.....

One might argue that the BSA was most relevant when communities were most relevant.  By community I mean small groups of people living, working, and serving together (and actually knowing each others names) within a geographic region. . . . As community has become less relevant to American life, the organizations that were tied to community (all of those mentioned above and more) have become more and more irrelevant.  Not because their mission isn't right and good, but, because there is no target beneficiary. 

At the same time as the decline of communities, we have the irrational rise in bubble-wrapped children. . . . The program the BSA offered for decades (with @qwazse permission, boys hiking and camping independently with their mates) became totally out-of-date and dangerously irresponsible. . . . We live in a society today that at least some folks consider adolescence extending until 24 years of age (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2018/01/19/adulthood-now-begins-24-say-scientists-young-people-delay-work/).  A program designed to breed personal leadership, independence, and responsibility in teenagers is hopelessly out-of-date.  

I think the BSA has also forgotten a simple truth about large organizations, that is, Simple Rules for Complex Societies.  By attempting to nationalize everything, they've create a bureaucracy that nobody can love.  The G2SS is seen as laughably restrictive in some places in America (squirt gun fights, really?  How's that playing in Peoria?) and way too permissive in other corners of society.  Advancement has been turned into paperwork drudgery that serves nobody but the bureaucrats.

So to the question, how do you make the program relevant without changing it more?  The short answer is you can't. . . . 

And that's the catch, isn't it?  Program changes only come from National, and given their track record, any changes are likely to be poorly conceived, poorly received, and poorly implemented.  Our best hope for moving forward may be if National puts a moratorium on any program changes for the next ten years or so.  In any case, they may be too busy with survival to worry about something like youth program.

So let me offer some optimistic thoughts.  

I agree that the decline of "everybody knows everybody" residential communities has hurt Scouting by breaking the connection between Scout units and the supportive community that the Scouts came from, and which felt as though the Scout unit belonged to them.  Many Scout units don't have a community that they know and they can feel loyal to and obligated to.  But that is easily fixable, at least on the unit side of the equation.  Instead of random, disconnected, scatter-shot service projects, the unit can select a neighborhood, local organization, park or institution where they can focus their service efforts.  It just has to be large enough to offer a variety of projects over a long period of time.  As the Scouts repeatedly put out effort for that beneficiary, they can begin to see how they are changing their little part of the world -- that they are relevant and a force for concrete improvements.  

BSA has largely adapted to the "bubble-wrapped children" phenomenon both through adult supervision policies and actual practice.  Many folks believe that the inability to let Scouts do things out of the sight and hearing of adults has hurt the effectiveness of the program.  Sure.  But even without physical distance between Scouts and adults,  there is plenty of room for the development of personal leadership, independence, and responsibility in teenagers.  But is a program with those goals no longer relevent, hopelessly out of date?  Of course not, as long as there is a quid pro quo:  As long as being a Scout comes with measurable accomplishments that parents value -- that will look good on college applications. 

As for the Scouting bureaucracy, well, that is the most contemporary feature of the organization, perfectly in step with our times.

Scouting has not lost its way because of the program, but because BSA and the country have forgotten why the Scouting program exists.  Consider two statements:

• PURPOSES (from the BSA's "Congressional Charter," United States Code Title 36, Section 30902)
  The purposes of the corporation are to promote, through organization, and cooperation with other agencies, the ability of boys to do things for themselves and others, to train them in scoutcraft, and to teach them patriotism, courage, self-reliance, and kindred virtues, using the methods that were in common use by boy scouts on June 15, 1916.
• MISSION STATEMENT (from the official Boy Scouts of America website)
  The mission of the Boy Scouts of America is to prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law.

The 1916 statement of purposes charges the BSA with turning out skilled, capable, courageous citizens; the country has an immediate and continuing need for that.  The current mission statement says that BSA is about turning out ethical, moral adults; but so does my church, so why do we need BSA?  We have to remember who we are and why we exist.  BSA doesn't have to worry about relevance if everyone understands that Scouts change the world.

@DuctTape made another important point:  youth need to be able to imagine themselves as heroes because of what they will learn in Scouts.