The future of the BSA

[HICO_Eagle 93]

2 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

@AwakeEnergyScouter, you see this confusion everywhere.

There is a common misconception that our "core product" is Eagle Scouts.  Ask parents what they want for their child out of Scouts, BSA... you'll get this answer most of the time.

Our core product is actually parsed out here:  "The Scouting program has specific objectives, commonly referred to as the “Aims of Scouting.” They are character development, leadership development, citizenship training, and personal fitness."

https://troopleader.scouting.org/scoutings-aims-and-methods/

Agreed.  That misperception -- which derived from the inarguable benefits resulting from being an Eagle Scout in years past -- was part of what led to the increasing Eagle mill phenomenon.  In my opinion, that kind of watered down the status of being an Eagle but my focus was on making the Scouts into better, more prepared adults so while I didn't care for Eagle mills, I didn't let them distract me from what I was trying to do.

[dk516 29]

1 hour ago, AwakeEnergyScouter said:

If this is true, then there's the membership problem right there. We're not delivering our "core product".

I don't think we are in many ways but I also don't think we are willing to look outside of our borders and consider what could be done better and improve our program. 

Some of the countries mentioned as having a thriving and reviving Scouting program must be doing something different to succeed. Looking at some of these programs, they clearly are a lot more volunteer based. Much smaller overhead that needs to be financed. Sweden was mentioned before in this thread. Their annual dues stated on their website are a 180SEK which translates to $16.50! 

Switzerland is another one. The Council I am in spans the larger of 3 states by now and is down to 4'500! Youth. We were told that this fall needs to net a 25% increase in members and otherwise we have a problem. Switzerland fits about the size of my Council and has 30'000+ Youth enrolled. Their NATIONAL Scouting Office has 10 professional staff for administration and marketing. Program development and training is solely volunteer based working groups from the small unit to national level. These are the same volunteers that are active in the units and are directly at the programming forefront and bring their input all the way up to the national program office and are being heard.

Many of these countries in Europe run a highly successful Rover program. In fact, the Rover program is where most of the volunteers come and serve from small units all the way to the National board. How many of our Youth could we retain with a 19-25yr meaningful program that is not burdened down with YPT and Adult Leadership requirements and everything else? Reality in my District is that we loose almost every single Scout once they turn 18 (if they even stay past their Eagle COH) because now from one day to the next we have to put so many rules in front of them that they are simply no longer interested being confined to all these boundaries and rather hang out with their friends outside of Scouts. These Youth don't come back to volunteer until much later when they have their own kids. 

3 years ago our Council introduced the council programming fees with the argument that FOS no longer works and a flat fee will assure every dollar goes directly into council programming. Guess what happened? There has not been a single event added or improvement made to a camp or training offered at reduced prices or anything. The exact opposite happened. Everything increased in cost even more and the continuous message form our professionals is that if we want anything to happen in our Council then the volunteers need to step up and do it. If Council doesn't have volunteers no event will happen but I have a pretty good guess where these Council Program fees are going every year. 

IMHO, the program and then intent of the program will hopefully survive. I do not see the current organization survive simply because it has become such a burden and overhead on the program that it will need to be abandoned first before something can change. I do truly hope I am totally wrong with this but I somehow do not think so.

[DannyG 69]

41 minutes ago, dk516 said:

Many of these countries in Europe run a highly successful Rover program. In fact, the Rover program is where most of the volunteers come and serve from small units all the way to the National board. How many of our Youth could we retain with a 19-25yr meaningful program that is not burdened down with YPT and Adult Leadership requirements and everything else? Reality in my District is that we loose almost every single Scout once they turn 18 (if they even stay past their Eagle COH) because now from one day to the next we have to put so many rules in front of them that they are simply no longer interested being confined to all these boundaries and rather hang out with their friends outside of Scouts. These Youth don't come back to volunteer until much later when they have their own kids. 

YES!

Wouldn't it be great to have a program for these young adults with similar interests in the outdoors to mingle, to plan their own trips, and further develop leadership skills as an adult? The scouts aging out of the program have so much value to give back to the youth. Even more so than the adult leaders of these aging out scouts. Instead we just let them go, hopefully to find their way back years later with their own youth.

[AwakeEnergyScouter 247]

2 hours ago, dk516 said:

I don't think we are in many ways but I also don't think we are willing to look outside of our borders and consider what could be done better and improve our program.

I'll agree with that, too. You can always learn from others. It's when you think you know everything that you're really in trouble. But it seems the common conflation of the organization BSA with the scouting movement as a whole makes it hard to have that conversation, so step one seems to be to point out that BSA != Scouting. 

From my POV, BSA and a lot of its members are too attached to the overhead you mention - owning camps, land, headquarters, etc as well as huge numbers of employees - to acknowledge that it's a ball and chain. Not just financially, but also mentally. If you maintain land and buildings on it, shouldn't you use it? Now you're not going backpacking in the wilderness because you have to go to your camp. It's no different than what happens when you have a summer house. First you have to go out there in spring to re-oil the boat and put the dock in when the ice has melted, and then you have to spend your summer vacation there instead of Greece because, well, it's there and it's yours. In theory you don't have to go there, but you will.

Several people here have had great scouting stories of relatively cheap but amazing trips they took scouts on. That's the way to go and keep going for all socioeconomic classes. It's better AND cheaper - it's rare that things work that way. And scouts are going to learn a heck of a lot more from organizing their own camps and trips than rolling up to a pre-made camp run by paid staff. Our whole thing is McGuyvering, why also have Q on staff?

[qwazse 4345]

8 hours ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

... Which is why the great majority finish their Eagle rank and disappear.  

My grade overall, on how we do collectively as an organization is a C-.  For a myriad of reasons.  All IMO, of course.

I was impressed with the number of scouts in my Jambo troop who earned Eagle ... many earned it more than a year ago. Now this could be a biased sample of scouts whose families engage the program more, but it's clear that this lot is not flying away.

It's not clear that there is a "great majority" disappearing after obtaining Eagle. Looking at my troop, about 1/4 who earn Eagle before age 17 find other things to occupy their time. That's not much different the the number of older scouts who quit without earning Eagle.

[HICO_Eagle 93]

On 8/16/2023 at 8:55 AM, Ojoman said:

One of todays PROBLEMS is that the program is now 6 years instead of 4. That is a long time to retain a kids interest. I would suggest building the program in 3 stages, lion/tiger, wolf/bear and Webelos/Aol. A great program retains and attracts.

I didn't like Tigers when they unveiled it because I thought a lot of parents seemed burned out at AOL ceremonies as it was.  We went from telling parents we wanted them to participate but not be helicopter parents to telling them we'd love to see them in at least 1 event a year (in other words, we're not asking you to be in everything like Cubs did).  I felt like Lions were even more counter-productive.  3 years to do Bobcat/Wolf/Bear and 1-2 for Webelos/AOL seemed right to me when I went through it.

[vol_scouter 365]

9 hours ago, HICO_Eagle said:

I didn't like Tigers when they unveiled it because I thought a lot of parents seemed burned out at AOL ceremonies as it was.  We went from telling parents we wanted them to participate but not be helicopter parents to telling them we'd love to see them in at least 1 event a year (in other words, we're not asking you to be in everything like Cubs did).  I felt like Lions were even more counter-productive.  3 years to do Bobcat/Wolf/Bear and 1-2 for Webelos/AOL seemed right to me when I went through it.

This is not a defense of the current structure but to explain the reasoning of the National volunteers who added first Tigers and later Lions. 
The first point to know is the well known fact that the vast majority of children joining Scouts BSA are from Cub Scouts.  Whenever there is a drop in Cub Scouts, it will be seen in Scouts BSA a few years later.  In my experience, most volunteers see Scouts BSA as the most important program as far as child development.  So Cub Scouts is important as a stand alone program but is also seen as a feeder for the Scouts BSA program.  
 

So there is a desire to grow Cub Scouts for the sake of Cub Scouts and to maintain a healthy Scouts BSA program. 
 

National volunteers have seen data that indicates that children (and parents) in the Cub Scout age groups tend to select an activity or two that they will continue to do for several years.  So it is imperative to get those children before they have committed to other activities that, according to the studies, they are not likely abandon for a different activity.  
 

There are other studies that indicated that children are joining competing activities at younger ages.  If that is so, then the BSA needed programs to get children committed to Scouting as early as competing programs.  That is the reason that Tigers came about and later Lions. 
 

My personal feeling is that there are two driving phenomena occurring.  First, the studies are likely correct so there is a need to engage children early.  There is at the same time the real problem that Cub Scouts and their parents get fatigued of the program and drop out or have little enthusiasm to crossover to a troop.  The number of children who drop out after crossing over is substantial.  
 

Personally, I also believe that the differences between how Scouts BSA actually functions compared to what the new Arrow of Light Scouts and their parents perceive is substantial and jarring.  Add to that the common practice of troops not wishing mothers to follow their children into the troop so that the first time a Scout is unhappy with the troop, then the mother at least and maybe father are ready to pull the child.  
 

Those are my thoughts on the subject. 
 

As to the studies, I did not see enough information that I will vouch for the accuracy of the information though it seemed reasonably well done and seemed to make sense with the reality.  So if the studies are erroneous, Lions and Tigers might be a mistake.  

[yknot 1338]

1 hour ago, vol_scouter said:

National volunteers have seen data that indicates that children (and parents) in the Cub Scout age groups tend to select an activity or two that they will continue to do for several years.  So it is imperative to get those children before they have committed to other activities that, according to the studies, they are not likely abandon for a different activity.  
 

There are other studies that indicated that children are joining competing activities at younger ages.  If that is so, then the BSA needed programs to get children committed to Scouting as early as competing programs.  That is the reason that Tigers came about and later Lions. 
 

My personal feeling is that there are two driving phenomena occurring.  First, the studies are likely correct so there is a need to engage children early.  There is at the same time the real problem that Cub Scouts and their parents get fatigued of the program and drop out or have little enthusiasm to crossover to a troop.  The number of children who drop out after crossing over is substantial.  
 

Personally, I also believe that the differences between how Scouts BSA actually functions compared to what the new Arrow of Light Scouts and their parents perceive is substantial and jarring.  Add to that the common practice of troops not wishing mothers to follow their children into the troop so that the first time a Scout is unhappy with the troop, then the mother at least and maybe father are ready to pull the child.  
 

Those are my thoughts on the subject. 
 

As to the studies, I did not see enough information that I will vouch for the accuracy of the information though it seemed reasonably well done and seemed to make sense with the reality.  So if the studies are erroneous, Lions and Tigers might be a mistake.  

I am always skeptical of any studies or survey results cited by BSA. They often select or guide results to skew towards supporting a preconceived course that BSA leadership wants to follow. It's more likely that BSA thought it could get more money and increase membership rolls by pushing the starting age lower. There are plenty of studies that could support an opposite approach, more along the lines of how UK scouting does it, or even limiting it longer to a more introductory approach like 4-H does with its Cloverbud program K-3. It's worth noting 4-H has six million youth members.  There may be some truth to elite youth picking a sport or other skill like music at 4, 5 or 6 and sticking with it through adulthood, but in most cases, very young children sample and are more concerned with sampling with friends than they are with actual specific activities. For example, if everyone from kindergarten class is doing soccer in the fall and basketball in the winter and t-ball in the spring,  that's where they'll go. Most kids actually drop out of serious sports by about 12 or 13, right when scouts should be offering a good option, but AOL does seem to terrify or bore a lot of them away.  

[Ojoman 157]

12 hours ago, vol_scouter said:

This is not a defense of the current structure but to explain the reasoning of the National volunteers who added first Tigers and later Lions.

My personal opinion on Tigers and Lions is that the BSA was in a membership decline and they needed to pump up the numbers and the registration dollars going to National. Yes, some people complained that the GSA started in kindergarten but honestly, we did not have membership growth in our core programs since the 70's when you compare apples to apples. Total growth was achieved by increasing the market by lowering the ages/grades to enter the program. Leaders now need to keep a families interest for 5 1/2 years instead of 3 or 4. A well run pack with strong, creative leadership can be successful but they are scarce. Retention is the only way to have AOL's to cross to a troop. 25 or 30 years ago it was common to see 8 or 10 cubs cross to scouts. Now it is a trickle even with the girls in the program. We need to break cubbing down into two year increments. Plan out two years of pack and den activities and program for gr k&1, two for gr 2&3 and Two for gr 4&5 that meet the needs of those specific grades so the kids feel and see the difference and you will have retention. Without retention you are just trying to fill up a bucket full of holes by recruiting to replace loss. STOP THE DROP... 

[1980Scouter 99]

In the future I see a lot of local council mergers. There are many, mostly smaller councils struggling financially.  

National should set a minimum of 5,000 scouts for a local council. With technology there is no need for as many scout offices. 

Put scout offices and shops on camp properties and sell the council offices. Reduced overhead.

[HICO_Eagle 93]

In my opinion, the breakage point is/was the low matriculation rate from Cubs to Boy Scouts. Creating Lions and Tigers bumped up those initial enrollment numbers which was touted by National and professionals but it seemed to accelerate the decrease in Cubs matriculating to Boy Scouts from what I could tell.

Cubs to Boy Scouts is a natural transition point. Pre-Tigers, the parents would have spent 4 years with their boys in Cubs. The level of parental engagement varied of course but was generally high. Then they were faced with Boy Scouts or ... something else. Directing their boys to various athletics instead of Boy Scouts meant the parental involvement could reduce to dropping the boy off at practice (and not even doing that if the city has good public transportation or the boy or his friends could drive) and attending a competition once a week.

In my experience, the parent most involved with Cubs were mothers and they were historically not inclined toward camping so they didn't have to worry about being asked to camp if the boy discontinued Scouting. What they often didn't know until I talked to them at AOL ceremonies was that they weren't expected to go camping with their boys. The relief I saw on their faces when I told them they were welcome to join us but weren't expected to was palpable.

In response to 1980Scouter, I don't think putting scout offices and shops on camp properties is feasible. Camp properties are generally well away from the city or council center so would be very inconvenient for troops to drop off paperwork (which could be submitted virtually) or individuals to pick up Scouting materials. In Colorado Springs, decades ago, they had an arrangement with a local department store that stocked nearly everything you could find at the store at the Scout office but that department store has long gone out of business. In the National Capitol Region, the "local" camp is a long nasty drive away. For many in the NCR, it would actually be more convenient to drive to the Baltimore Council camp than to go to Goshen.

Edited August 20, 2023 by HICO_Eagle

[Ojoman 157]

14 hours ago, 1980Scouter said:

In the future I see a lot of local council mergers. There are many, mostly smaller councils struggling financially.  

IMHO There have been too many mergers of councils and districts. Over my years as a member of the BSA profession I learned that of all my goals and 'critical achievements' the easiest ones to manage were my finance goals. Frankly, there is a lot of $$$ out there but some professionals are either too incompetent or to untrained to go out and get it. Here they merged 3 councils into one in recent years and went from 11 districts down to 3. The geography is daunting and in my district we now have around 19 school districts with over 50 elementary and middle schools not counting parochial, charter and private. They put an entry level DE into this district. Ridiculous. And distances to the scout shop and council service center are unreasonable. The larger the council and districts the less direct service the district volunteers and unit volunteers receive. The less sound direction and service the more turnover and drops. I seldom hear folks say positives about 'the council' but I hear enough negatives. Very discouraging. In 2019 we showed just over 6,000 volunteers, in 2021 just barely over 1,000 (source 990). With the new fees I expect that number to drop even more. A very sad state of affairs. The question is, can we turn this around or is it too late? 

[qwazse 4345]

On 8/16/2023 at 12:56 PM, dk516 said:

… Switzerland is another one. …. Switzerland fits about the size of my Council and has 30'000+ Youth enrolled. Their NATIONAL Scouting Office has 10 professional staff for administration and marketing. Program development and training is solely volunteer based working groups from the small unit to national level. These are the same volunteers that are active in the units and are directly at the programming forefront and bring their input all the way up to the national program office and are being heard.

Having just camped adjacent to Swiss (who shared excellent teokbokki with us while we scrambled to raise camp), I spent a good four days sharing coffee with their scoutmasters and learning about their program. One important thing to note: they receive government funding, and their program provides sports education (similar to BSA’s defunct varsity scouts).

[dk516 29]

53 minutes ago, qwazse said:

they receive government funding, and their program provides sports education (similar to BSA’s defunct varsity scouts).

@qwazse having done it myself, Swiss Scouts works closely with the federal government and their accredited national training programs. They provide national training programs for ages 14-Up which is usually when you would start your leadership career with Scouts. The trainings are heavily subsidized to make them affordable and also offer employment compensation for attendees having to take unpaid leave from their profession while attending these week long trainings. 

Additionally, the Swiss Civil Protection Service can provide gear and infrastructure and personnel support at no cost to Youth Organizations. I.e. the 2022 Jambo in Switzerland received heavy infrastructure and logistics support free of charge that way.

[DannyG 69]

On 8/19/2023 at 12:51 AM, HICO_Eagle said:

I didn't like Tigers when they unveiled it because I thought a lot of parents seemed burned out at AOL ceremonies as it was.  We went from telling parents we wanted them to participate but not be helicopter parents to telling them we'd love to see them in at least 1 event a year (in other words, we're not asking you to be in everything like Cubs did).  I felt like Lions were even more counter-productive.  3 years to do Bobcat/Wolf/Bear and 1-2 for Webelos/AOL seemed right to me when I went through it.

Maybe there is a generational difference.  When I was a kid, parents just dropped their kids off at Cub scout meetings and left. I suppose they had hoped a few adults would stick around as volunteers. Today's parents want a program they can enjoy together as a family. Lions and Tigers work together with an adult partner. I find this acclimates parents into the program, especially if they were not scouts as children. By the time their kids are Wolf/Bear they are giving back to the Pack, and at Webelos/AOL they are leading. So these adults are ready for leadership roles if their kids decide to join a troop. 

Cub Scouts is a different program than Scouts BSA. It is more than a training ground for future scouts. Not every kid that completes Arrow of Light wants to continue in a troop. And there are older kids who want outdoor adventures that didn't complete Arrow of Light, or they weren't interested in the Cub Scout program.

If they "burned out' after Cubs it is because they got what they wanted from the program and didn't want to continue. There are sports, activities, and other programs competing for their attention. Isn't it better to have had them as scouts for a few years as Cubs, than to have to make them wait it out and perhaps not be in scouts at all?