dkurtenbach

While almost all recruiting is at the local unit level (and the unit has to be able to close the deal), we have to soften up the target audience so they will have a favorable view of Scouts, will see Scout skills and abilities as relevant and practical, and will be able to imagine their child changing the world because of what he or she learned as a Scout.  That is where marketing program and strategy come in, it seems to me.

2 hours ago, ianwilkins said:

Sorry, but It's going to take more than a new slogan, however good that new slogan might be.

That’s right.  We need two things:

- An attitude of absolute confidence, enthusiasm, and conviction universally shared among our members and families. But that’s not going to be based on our organization, which is pretty shaky right now.  Instead, our swagger will be based on the abilities and achievements of the young people who come out of our programs and the unit Scouters who produce them.

- A clear, simple, understandable, focused message:  Scouts change the world.

Controversies, scandal, significant membership loss, irrelevance . . . Scouting, that is, the Boy Scouts of America, has been taking a lot of hits, with no relief in sight.  With the loss of the LDS Church and talk of bankruptcy, BSA certainly looks like it is on the ropes.  BSA's character-based pitches ring hollow given the sex abuse scandal and reversal of its moral stand.  Its uniforms seem . . . quaint (sashes? really?) as do some of its other program elements (merit badges, Tenderfoot rank, knot tying).  And its marketing is uninspired (Scout Me In, Prepared for Life).  How can we retake the initiative?  Reshape the image of Scouts and Scouting as dynamic, contemporary, and/or absolutely necessary for America's future?  And since changes to the program itself (1) are unnecessary, and (2) make us look desperate, how do we change our image without any more changes to the program?  What can we say or do that is short, simple, clear, and powerful, and works at every level from a Scout leader talking to a parent at a school night to a national marketing campaign.  How do we tell people that whether they know it or not, they need Scouting.  Again:  Dynamic, contemporary, and/or absolutely necessary for America's future.

Just some initial thoughts:

1. Scouts save lives.
2. Scouts are saving the planet.
3. The more Scouts we have, the more America we can fix.
4. Scouts step up when others step back.
5. Scouts are America's guardian angels.
6. Scouts will do what needs to be done.
7. Keep a Scout close by for emergencies.
8. If you need to light a fire, you know who to call.
9. Everyone wants them, but America needs them.
10. Scouts can do what most people can't.
11. Scouts keep going when other people give up.
12. The Scouts of today are the heroes of tomorrow.
13. When the lights go out, you'll wish you had a Scout.
14. A Scout will get you there.
15. You'll sleep better at night knowing that Scouts are out there.
16. When you have a Scout, the fire never goes out.
17. Sometimes it just takes a Scout.
18. Scouts do more - because they can.
19. [Girls] [boys] who are Scouts today are the ____________s we need tomorrow.
20. Don't worry - [his] [her] roommate is a Scout.

1. Even in just the basic advancement program, Scouting offers a very broad range of subject matter, from wildlife study to swimming and cycling, compass use to hand axes, cooking to first aid, and much more, before you even get to the scores of subject areas covered by merit badges and STEM awards.
2. You learn things that will be useful for the rest of your life, and you can become an expert in subjects that will amaze your friends and family.
3. In Scouts BSA and Venturing, youth learn and advance at their own pace.
4. You work on some things individually, some things as a team, and some things as a leader.
5. Achievements are immediately recognized.
6. There is nothing better than sitting in front of a campfire under a sky full of stars.

The problem with the Soccer and Scouting idea, in my view, is the notion that you can make Scouting more appealing by watering it down and making it look like something it isn't.  I'd put STEM Scouting in that same category.  Soccer is great, and maybe BSA should get into the soccer business, but don't call it Scouting.  STEM is great, and BSA has gotten into the STEM business, but don't call it Scouting.  

BSA's Soccer and Scouting initiative has been around for a while.  The idea was to use soccer to introduce Scouting into the Hispanic community.   A few references:   https://www.mccscouting.org/soccer-scouting ;  https://voiceofscouting.org/developing-confidence-through-the-soccer-and-scouting-program ;  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scoutreach ;  https://scoutingwire.org/creating-opportunities-for-all-children/

32 minutes ago, carebear3895 said:

II implore you to visit smaller 500 or 400 level rural councils that are dependent on Professionals for all areas of scouting. Program, unit service, youth and adult recruitment, and fundraising. (Believe it or not, councils need money to keep camps open). No offense, but you have a very short sighted view. 

As I discussed above, I agree that there has to be a certain limited professional infrastructure to provide particular resources that are beyond the capabilities of individual units or area or regional collections of units and unit volunteers.  As I stated, that specifically includes "[l]ocal Scout properties available year-round for camping, hiking, campfires, and other basic Scouting outdoor activities."  That necessarily includes costs for acquisition, development, maintenance, and staffing.  Having been very involved with our Council's camp facilities for several years, I'm well aware of the costs associated with Scout properties.  Of course there has to be funding.  I'm also well aware that well-managed camps of the right size and having the right facilities for the user base can pay for themselves.  

I grew up in a Great Plains farming and ranching town of 500 people with one Scout troop of about 20 boys and no Cub Scout pack, 50 miles from the Council headquarters.  We Scouts worked for money to pay our own way, and did fundraising for the troop.  We camped every month and every summer the troop went to the Council summer camp and on a Boundary Waters canoe trek, and it produced Eagle Scouts regularly.  The volunteer Scout leaders and the parents and the Scouts did that.  

9 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

Perhaps I should amend my initial summary... good Districts and Councils are vital to scouting.  

As I discussed above, I agree that there has to be a certain limited professional infrastructure to provide particular resources that are beyond the capabilities of individual units or area or regional collections of units and unit volunteers. 

But when you are talking about organizing multi-unit programs, or promoting Scouting in communities, or assisting units and leaders via training and commissioner service, volunteers are doing all of that already.  They don't need a council or district structure, or council or district professionals, to make it happen.  I've dealt with some fine district executives and other professionals, but they weren't doing program or commissioner work.  They were overseeing fundraising to pay for council operations, administering membership paperwork flow between the council on one hand and units and volunteers on the other, and encouraging/nagging district volunteers to do things to ensure that the district hit all of its council-established performance targets. 

We continue to need volunteers working individually and in teams and committees to provide programming for units beyond what individual units can do on their own; and to provide training, help, and advice to develop unit leaders and improve unit quality; and to promote the program in the community so that units will have fertile ground for recruiting.  But we don't need a professional Scouting bureaucracy to do those things, and we don't need layers of organization that have their own goals (such as fundraising) that are disconnected from supporting and developing unit Scouting.  

10 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

At our District level, camporees have added a lot of value.  Our Klondike, our on by district, is a Troop favorite.

Council level summer camps, merit badge clinics (some) and a variety of partnerships with local universities and professional sports teams have helped provide solid experiences.  In addition, my council has definitely helped on recruiting tasks.

National...  improving IT systems (Scoutbook linkages & online applications)  along with high adventure plus program material.

Now, I do question if our fees and fundraising are going to these areas in the most efficient way possible and I question all the layers of leadership.

This is a list I compiled in another thread of functions requiring professional staff at the Council or National level. 

•  Liability insurance protecting Scout leaders when claims are made against them
•  Medical insurance protecting Scouts and other participants injured in Scouting activities
•  Uniform youth protection and conduct policies
•  Adult applicant background checks, screening, reporting, and enforcement of conduct policies
•  Uniform health and safety policies, incident reporting, and research
•  Relationships with local, state, and national agencies and organizations that can enhance Scouting programs
•  Scouting news and policy publications and communications
•  Local Scout properties available year-round for camping, hiking, campfires, and other basic Scouting outdoor activities 

Beyond these functions, I don't think there is much that requires the kind of bureaucracy we currently have.  Camporees and Klondikes don't need districts - they need units.  Merit badge clinics can be run by units (if not abolished in a reformed Scouting organization).  Summer camp programs - do we need them?  Especially since they have become primarily merit badge clinics?  Units are capable of banding together to sponsor a week-long program at a Scout property.  Is there anything the Council has done on recruiting that a unit or group of units could not do?  We don't need Scoutbook and other nationwide IT systems:  There is no reason that there has to be a national list of all BSA youth members, much less a national database for all advancement.  Units did very well with Troopmaster and TroopWebHost and the many other unit management products developed in the last 30 years.  Many units "roll their own" high adventure programs or work with commercial outfitters.  

We don't even need uniform national advancement requirements and procedures and uniforms.  All we need are goals, a short list of "Must Haves," and a short list of "No-Nos" -- which democratically elected volunteer committees can agree upon, based upon local conditions. Then leave it to units and collections of units to pick and choose from the vast treasury of more than a hundred years of Scouting lore and materials already out there, plus newly developed program.  We already have the goals and some "Must Haves" in 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."

1 hour ago, yknot said:

BSA needs to retool to serve the needs of the local unit and help get kids outdoors and in the community.

Absolutely.  All Scouting is local.  Recruiting happens through units.  Program happens through units.  Retention happens through units.  We don't need a vast, multi-layered bureaucracy above the unit level, with the Scouting bureaucrats principally occupied in pleasing the Scouting bureaucrats in the layers above them.  We don't need them sucking money and time and labor out of the real Scout workers in the units.  Take a good look at what districts and councils and BSA National does.  How much value does it add to unit programs?

The question is::  Given that Scouting actually happens at the local unit level, what value is actually provided by the layers of corporate bureaucracy at the Council level and above?  I would suggest:

•  Liability insurance protecting Scout leaders when claims are made against them
•  Medical insurance protecting Scouts and other participants injured in Scouting activities
•  Uniform youth protection and conduct policies
•  Adult applicant background checks, screening, reporting, and enforcement of conduct policies
•  Uniform health and safety policies, incident reporting, and research
•  Relationships with local, state, and national agencies and organizations that can enhance Scouting programs
•  Scouting news and policy publications and communications
•  Local Scout properties available year-round for camping, hiking, campfires, and other basic Scouting outdoor activities 

And that's about it.  We need an insurance agency, a disciplinary unit, communications office, and camps with Rangers to maintain them.  Uniform nationwide programming decisions that bind everyone make the entire program vulnerable to a single mistake or misjudgment at the national level -- or a series of them -- that can drag the whole organization over a cliff.   

5 minutes ago, yknot said:

Why does this disease that everything has to be bigger, better, blingy-er always infect organizations? 

This is another area where Corporate Scouting (at both the National and Council levels) adversely affects Unit Scouting.  Rather than asking what units actually need to operate a great program 52 weeks a year, the folks running the show ask what they can do that will impress their "stakeholders."  Something they can highlight when giving tours of their facilities or making fundraising pitches.  Something they can attach a donor name to.  But over and over again, we find that "If we build it, they (Scouts) will come" is something that only happens in movies.  And we're left with big debt and/or big ongoing expenses for acquiring, building and/or maintaining something that units don't really need, or is too far away to get much use, or is only seen by Scouts and leaders who don't much care about its architectural beauty.  Yet unit families are asked to pay for them, and units are continually pestered about using those facilities.

The article states that:  "The American program is the second-largest in the world, with the national organization claiming over 2.4 million members. As of 2012, the Gerakan Pramuka Indonesia, or Indonesian Scout Movement, had more than 21 million members, making it by far the largest Scout association worldwide."

I guess we know where to go for membership recruiting advice.  On the other hand, that was back in 2012.  A lot can happen in a Scouting organization in seven years.

Back in 2013 it seemed that the major motivation behind the admission of gay youth was that corporate donors to BSA were reducing or discontinuing support because of BSA's discriminatory policies.  BSA had the choice of compromising on that issue and hoping that it could do so without alienating its religious institution partners, or sticking with its "right to discriminate" and facing continuing public disapproval.   And BSA was relatively successful in avoiding a mass exodus of religious organizations over the gay issue.

I think the decision of the LDS church to cut its ties with the BSA was much more about admission of girls into BSA's programs for younger kids.  That meant that boys-only LDS units would be running into girl dens and girl troops at district and other events and that general Scouting publications and information would continually be discussing girl programs.  This would be a much larger and more open divergence of BSA from the traditional LDS structure than the occasional gay Boy Scout or adult leader.  

Robert Gates?

5 hours ago, TAHAWK said:

Our Council Executive:

"Traditional Scouting does not work today."

"Scouters are not happy with the quality of our training.  We need to cut back on training."   (Apply that logic to meals at Summer Camp.)

Eliminated FOS ?("Why should we have to ask every year?) in favor of a program where "friends of Scouting" are asked to authorize monthly automatic withdrawals from a bank account - like automatic bill paying for cell phone service.  General fund raising down 1/3 year over year.

Eliminated districts and set up "Service Areas" run by "professionals,"  typically with under two years involvement in Scouting.  Roundtable attendance down 45%, and falling. Ninety minutes of announcements and fund raising does not seem especially attractive.

Sounds like that Council Executive has given up.  Of course traditional Scouting still works -- at the unit level, if you have leaders who know what they are doing and an active program, especially an active outdoor program.  Traditional Scouting isn't working nearly as well at organizational levels above the unit because the layers of bureaucracy above the unit level aren't adding much value to unit Scouting and instead are a drag on the movement.

19 hours ago, Eagledad said:

Obviously the agenda is to take down any Christian related organization. The BSA is not specifically Christian, but it is labeled as one by the PC activists, so it’s a target. Is there hope for traditional values in any organization today?

Yes.  Religious institutions.  And most of them have "in-house" youth programs of some kind. 

It makes perfect sense that religious institutions would want to leverage Scouting programs to expand the activity options for their youth while keeping those youth in a values-based program consistent with the values of the religious organization.   And it makes perfect sense that BSA would want to partner with organizations that have a lot of youth in order to efficiently grow and maintain membership.  And it made sense that once those religious organizations became major BSA constituencies, BSA had strong incentives to stay on the good side of those organizations.

14 hours ago, ParkMan said:

Frankly - the BSA made a huge mistake ever letting itself get aligned with any particular belief set.

We have to keep in mind that Baden-Powell had a lot to say about religion being integral to Scouting.  BSA's Declaration of Religious Principle was adopted early in BSA's history, and is consistent with the social norms of the early 20th Century.  And discrimination against homosexuals was socially acceptable until only recently and is still the subject of legal disputes. Still, BSA's opposition on moral grounds appeared extreme because BSA was considered a patriotic community organization, not a religious organization.  Further, BSA's claim that homosexuality was not "Clean" seemed particularly odd and offensive.

Remember that BSA marketing tagline, "America is returning to the values that Scouting never left"?  Did BSA really believe that?  I think the real problem was that BSA was too slow in realizing that it didn't matter whether it had the right to discriminate, because it was actually dependent on public support, not its religious partners.

Much as Pickett's Charge breaching the Union line on Cemetery Ridge at the Battle of Gettysburg (1863) is considered by some the "high-water mark of the Confederacy," the Supreme Court decision in the Dale case (2000) could be considered the high-water mark of BSA's war in defense of "traditional values."  With each, there was a brief period of seeming victory, followed by retreat and disappointment.  According to this article, after Dale, BSA's membership suffered a casualty rate similar to that of the Confederate forces attacking the center of the Union line that day -- approximately 50% (4.8 million as of 1998, 2.3 million as of 2016).  I don't know that it is accurate to attribute all of that membership decline to public disapproval of BSA's "right to discriminate."  Some of that decline was self-inflicted in 2013-2014 after BSA decided to admit gay youth and in 2015 when the ban on gay adult leaders was lifted.  All part of the same war, though.  

There will always be debates over whether Pickett's Charge (also known as Longstreet's Assault) was a mistake -- whether Lee should have realized after the first two days of battle that his advantage had been lost and there was no knock-out blow to be had at Gettysburg.  The same could be said of BSA and Dale -- after all, Ellen DeGeneres had come out as lesbian on national television in 1997 and the New Jersey state Supreme Court had ruled 7-0 against BSA in 1999 -- public sentiment concerning homosexuality was already turning.

16 hours ago, TAHAWK said:

From a peak of 6.5 million Scouts in 1972, membership declined to a low of 4.3 million in 1980.

14 hours ago, Onslow said:

The unit should set its own priorities provided operations conform to the BSA program. 

BSA seems to be at some kind of organizational crossroads as a result of membership standards changes, litigation over past sexual abuse, and financial difficulties.  Given the uncertainty and BSA's needs -- membership, in particular -- I think it is fair to consider changing the organizational level within BSA that determines what members will be doing and how they will be doing it.  That is, the level of the organization that decides on specific details of programs (such as individual rank or activity requirements), membership eligibility (age, sex, belief), and individual unit organization (for example, separate boy/girl dens and troops versus fully co-ed).  In our hyper-litigious society, there have to be some nationwide standards in critical areas such as youth protection and physical safety.  But Scouting as a program lives or dies at the local unit level.  Maybe it is time for BSA National to restrict itself to areas that have to have nationwide uniformity, but otherwise just set some general program goals and boundaries ("must haves" and "no-nos").  Within those boundaries allow local Chartered Organizations, Scout leaders, and Scouts to adapt and experiment based on local conditions, with the approval of local Councils.   Train 'em, Trust 'em, Let 'em Lead.   Give units the leeway to do what works for them within the framework of the greater BSA program.

1 hour ago, RememberSchiff said:

https://www.eastidahonews.com/2019/11/the-future-of-scouting-in-eastern-idaho-looks-bleak-but-leader-say-it-is-not-doomed/

This is a good article about the challenges faced by a council with 80% LDS membership.  To me, this was the most significant statement in that article:  "Braithwaite said he has even seen the new community troop in Idaho Falls created by a local businessman and a group of Scouts, including Braithwaite’s two sons, grow instead of shrink over that last year.  'We’re just trying to keep the kids going,' Braithwaite said. 'The more we do, the more kids keep coming.'”  (Emphasis added.) 

We have to keep front and center the reality that neither BSA National nor our local councils are "Scouting."  Baden-Powell's Scouting program didn't arrive in the United States with the formation of a corporation.  It arrived with with copies of Scouting for Boys, a book chock-full of fun and adventure and challenge, and the resulting ad hoc formation of local Scout troops.  More than a century later, that truth has not changed:  All Scouting is local.  It happens in dens and packs and troops and crews and ships.  All Scout recruiting is local.  Youth join units because of their friends and families and unit activities.  Even in the midst of all of the problems of BSA National, youth continue to join -- and stay in -- active units with great outdoor programs and great leadership.  They continue to leave units that don't hold their interest.  The more we do [in our local units], the more kids keep coming.  

I am reminded of a line from the movie Follow Me Boys where plans for a troop celebration are being explained to Lem, the old Scoutmaster.  When he is told that the Troop Committee is handling things, he responds, "The Troop Committee?  They'll just gum everything up."  I'm wondering if that applies on a vastly larger scale to the decisions made by BSA National, at least starting with the "improved" Scouting program that broke American Scouting at its height in the 1970s.  Maybe BSA's priorities should be to shrink its corporate bureaucracy as much as possible, issue only policies that are absolutely necessary (such as YPT), and get out of the way of Scouting at the local level so that units, Scouts, and Scouters can improvise, innovate, and adapt their membership policies, training, and program elements to local conditions.

16 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

Generally speaking - yes.  The BSA needs to be relevant to today's youth.

I think the BSA has to be careful in who it targets it's program to.  We need to make sure our relevance is to kids.  If we target adult sensibilities, that may be good for Cub Scout initial recruitment, but over time we'll still lose Scouts.  Make it fun and interesting to kids - and most especially kids in the program.  

I absolutely agree that our program has to be fun and interesting to kids.  My experience is that kids like doing things that make a difference -- even (or especially) difficult things -- as long as the object is clear and understandable and relevant to them, the activity is scaled to the age and attention span of the youth, and the activity is planned and offered in a way that is not boring or tedious or otherwise unappealing. 

By their mid-teens, young people are aware of what is happening in the world, are forming opinions about those issues, and are looking for outlets where they can do something positive.  That is also the time when young people are dropping out of Scouting after having done lots of camping and hiking and merit badge earning and serving in Positions of Responsibility.  Scouting activities directed outward toward real-world problems (but still within the core Scouting program) could provide that outlet and keep more youth in Scouting programs. 

At the same time, BSA's reputation and future membership is in the control of adults.  They are the people who see the bigger picture and have opinions about the value of the Boy Scouts of America.  They are the people who will judge whether BSA has something worthwhile to contribute to today's world and should be supported, or is just a refuge for hobbyists and traditionalists who want to retreat from today's world.

18 hours ago, fred8033 said:

I absolutely agree.  The "outdoors" is BSA's big unique selling opportunity.   It's debatable on BSA's track record with physical fitness, leadership and citizenship.  BSA is generally really good, but those can also be addressed with sports, ROTC and other programs.  But I really don't see a quality youth outdoor nature program other than BSA.  

11 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

Would it perhaps be more accurate to describe the BSA as an adventure program? The best packs and troops I know spend a lot of time outdoors and do some mature things, but they are not really nature programs.  I learned more about nature in one year of high school biology than 6 years of Scouting. 

I would say that BSA already has all of the content of a nature/ecology/environmental program available in its handbooks, merit badge pamphlets, and Fieldbook.  These can be supplemented by authoritative outside materials and, best of all, by experts directly teaching and guiding Scouts -- experts readily available in local, state, and national parks and local high schools, community colleges, and universities.  But I agree that nature study is often a neglected subject matter in unit programs, perhaps because it is an area that is far more knowledge-based and far less hands-on than other standard Scouting subjects. 

Nevertheless, if BSA wishes to improve its image in the minds of the general public, one thing it must do (in addition to dealing with the sexual abuse and financial crises) is counteract the perception that Scouting is a "living history" program, teaching youth about things like whittling and pioneering and campfires, and wearing uniforms designed nearly fifty years ago.  That is, the public perception that Scouting is out-of-touch and not relevant to the problems of today's world.  One of the biggest of those problems is the environment.  Another is obesity.  Another -- particularly where the news is full of the devastation of severe storms, forest fires, and mass-casualty events -- is emergency preparation and response.  Another is nature deprivation syndrome and too much electronic screen time.  These are four areas that are directly addressed by existing BSA program content and that can all make a difference now as well as in the future.  BSA must show America that it is relevant to the world today by publicly, visibly, and powerfully engaging in issues that matter today. 

We have to separate the concept of "relevance" from the concept of being "worthwhile."  Character education and skills training for youth today are certainly important -- worthwhile -- for the future, whether 5 or 10 or 30 years from now.  But relevance is defined as related to or connected to the matter at hand.  The matter at hand is the condition of youth and society today, now.  To be relevant, Scouting has to be seen as a program that benefits participants almost immediately upon joining; those benefits to youth must be observable and understandable to the public; the program must be perceived as understanding and being engaged in today's world (not looking back to the past); and the program must not be perceived as being for a narrow or select audience or as having views or practices considered exclusive or offensive.   

As an administrative subdivision of the Council, the most pressure on a district and its leadership comes from its responsibility for two functions:  (1) raise its share of the Council operating budget each year, through Friends of Scouting, special fundraising events (a golf tournament or  awards dinner), and participation of units in the Council-approved fundraisers (such as popcorn sales); and (2) recruit (largely through units) its share of new members.  Those are areas of need where the Council is heavily dependent on existing units:  units and unit members are the source of a lot of the funds raised, and recruitment largely happens in units and through unit efforts.  The flip side of that are other district functions designed to support and serve units, such as leader training, Roundtable, Unit Commissioners, and district-wide program activities such as camporees. 

Units do have a need for many different kinds of support and resources that typically are not readily available within the unit or chartered organization.  For example:  meeting space (if not available from CO); uniforms, equipment, publications, supplies; camping and activity locations; summer camps, high adventure opportunities, and other program experiences beyond the standard unit campout or other recurring unit activity; adult leader training; advanced youth leader training; registration, advancement, and award administration, instruction, and guidance; and people to talk to about unit operations to get answers, tips, experiences, and different perspectives.  

In many cases, the units and the district need the same things, such as rechartering (units need to be official, and the district needs as many units as it can legitimately get), or correct advancement records, or good membership recruitment.  But my observation is that with other needs, there is a net imbalance, whether real or perceived:  The district needs what the units can provide (such as money, unit assessments, Journey to Excellence score sheets, attendance at training and Roundtable and events) more than the units need what the district can provide.  The value of what units provide to the district is greater than the value of the services that the district provides to units.  And that gap would be there even if the district had outstanding training, Roundtables, administrative support, activities, and Unit Commissioners.  And regardless of how the district was organized or who the people are, as long as its functions remain the same. 

Yet, there is supposed to be a gap -- but in the other direction.  Units are where Scouting happens.  Units should expect to get much more direct help and value from the greater Scouting organization than they are directly giving to that organization.

7 hours ago, ParkMan said:

Strong packs & troops with well defined programs are doing fine.  Weak packs & troops with poorly defined programs, insufficient leadership, and untrained adults are having problems.

. . .  I think we have to improve our membership the old fashioned way - by word of mouth, solid program, and hard work from units.

@ParkMan makes a great, fundamental point here.  All Scout recruiting is local.  Good units do well, poor ones do not.  I have long believed that the two biggest threats to a strong BSA are purely internal: 

• Program quality that varies wildly from unit to unit.  A family that finds itself in a weak unit is likely to leave Scouting altogether, not just that unit.  And if that happens, Scouting has lost them (and possibly some of their friends and relatives) for at least two generations.
• Because most Boy Scouting / Scouts BSA members come from Cub Scouting, troop membership recruitment has been and continues to be largely dependent upon the recruiting abilities of Cub Scout leaders from five or six years earlier.