Do we really need BSA ?

[Scoutfish 16]

Now, let me start off by saying: I have no problem witrh bing a member in good standing of BSA.

 

I have no issue being part of a unit in a district in a council in a sector olr whatever it is that is next in area.

 

But thinking back when Beasment was talking about district where there were no events, leaders were held back from thinking or planning fun stuff and the only thing ever scheduled were FOS presentations...well. from that point of view, shouldn't BSA worry a bit?

 

I mean, look at it this way: Supose Basement and all the parents and scouts in his unit just sat back and talked the pros and cons of bing in BSA>

 

For starters,, if bthey dropped out, they could use registration money elsewhere.

 

leaders could do the same. Now, if they were just a private ( by that I mean just belonging to their own area and nor part of BSA) youth group..they would not have top follw G2SS in areas like bb gun restrictions or archery restrictions on canoeing restrictions> They could go out, rent waverunners, jet skis' dirt bikes, 4 wheelers, go watersking or canoeing whenever/ wherever they liked> They could have backyard bb gun shooting contests, They could build their own bows and arrows whenmever they wanted>

 

Nobody would have to wast time taking YPT or worry about 2 deeps or any of the many qualms in BSA.

They could go camping whenever or wherever they wanted without filling out a tour plan.

 

No BSA to deny or turn them down. They could sell what they want, whenever they want for fundraisning. Raffle tickets or gambling all they wanted.

 

No BSA restrictions on that either.

 

So, from the council/ national standpoint...wouldn't you think BSA would want to make things eaier for us instead of harder.

 

Again, I have no grudge against BSA or the rules...but thinking about the District professionals in Basement's area......

 

You'd think they would even figure out they were their own biggest enemy.

[Callooh! Callay!1428010939 28]

"need" ?

No.

It's got it's pros and cons.

Apparently the pros outweigh the cons in the judgment of many.

But we don't "need" it.

 

[Scoutfish 16]

What I should have said was:

 

BSA should look at what they do, and ask, do the unit really need us

Then from that point, look at the whole program, and see how great they can make ikt , with the least amount of obstructions for us to go through in order to use that prgram.

 

Like I said, in Basement's past experiences, his district should have asked themselves in anybody in thier district really gained anything ( thus the need) by being a member of BSA.

 

In Basement's case, I think his Co could have just ran a youth group, had twice as much fun, but without all the hassle, rules, and paying $$ to BSA every time they turn around.

 

[TAHAWK 1420]

If you are asking can BSA be stimulated to be more customer-friendly, they have in our council -- rather sharply and suddenly.

 

Since December 31st, the paid guy who was driving units (and staff) away from our council's camp with his authoritarianism and arrogance is out of that job - demoted two grades. His replacement eliminated the long list of "Thou Shall Not's" at camp with simply the Oath and Law. He has been "taking back" most of his predecessor's off-putting administrative positions (such as : "No, you can't have access to your site an hour early, and I don't care what your reason is. A rule is a rule."), asking the customers what they want and giving it to them. And the changes are now - this Summer - not in the undefined future.

 

Having been given BSA email addresses to communicate concerns, which is an improvement, all I have to show for communication thus far are form responses that my emails will the referred to "appropriate" persons. I have heard "Don't call us; we'll call you" before when I used contacts suggested by the staff at Scouting, so I have yet to see if the long-standing practices of ignoring volunteers is changing at that level.

 

The problem of top-down management losing touch with what is needed at the "field" level is pretty wide-spread in large organizations. I used to work for AT&T when it was the largest company in the world, and there was a reality gradient that meant the further you got from the customer going up the command chain, the less was known about what the customer wanted thought. ("Black telephones is all they need.")

 

There was Scouting before BSA - 99 troops in Cleveland before BSA. Attempts to start competing organizations since has not done well.

 

Units elect to have more or less to do with B.S.A. Some of our strongest troops have very little to do with Scouting outside their unit. They are the exception.

[Eagle92 110]

Very mixed emotions on this one.

 

As y'all know, I've been a pro, and I've been in several councils. I've seen the good the bad and the "OH MY THAT'S UGLY"

 

Nationally, while some of the rules are totally bogus IMHO, i.e. no lazer tag, no tuna can stoves, etc, because we are a national organization that accepts a diverse group of folks that is under multiple legal jurisdictions, I can understand why some of th e rules came about.

 

As for customer service at the local level, I've found it to be a combination of the district/council volunteers and professional staff.

 

Let's face it the attitude of the SE set the tempo. If you have an SE that is only interested in being #1 in his category for the 3 M's: Money, Membership, and Manpower, you will have problems. I've met, known, and worked for SEs like that.

 

BUT when you got an SE that focuses on what the Scouts, parents, and leaders want it makes a world of difference. The council I grew up in had one of the former and the council had problems. When he left we had one focused on the youth and it made a world of difference. Was he perfect, no. Where there some issues between him and leaders, yes. BUT there was a respect for him because the leaders in the field knew what his focus was, knew he cared, and trusted him.

 

One reason why I am glad of the SE my council has now, and hope he doesn't go anywhere soon. Do some leaders have issues with him, sure. I've heard some complaints. BUT overall we know where his heart is, and also know that some of the challenges the council is facing has affected some of his plans. Yes he is a pro and is concerned about the 3 M's, but he also realizes the importance of scouting in the lives of folks and why program is so important.

 

But also the district level folks make an impact. Y'all know the problems my district have in regards to one volunteer essentially destroying the CS program over the years. We got challenges are ahead, and hopefully we can get a team in place to improve the situation.

[Oak Tree 15]

I think that our units could pretty much exist in isolation, with just a way to order stuff from National. Obviously, we need the national organization - we need handbooks and requirement books and uniforms and badges.

 

But do we need the council and the district? (And I have no idea what a "region" does.) The district and council camporees are nice things, but we don't need them. Summer camp is probably the biggest thing that a council does - I think it would be hard to replicate that experience on our own, and not having a summer camp would affect the program.

 

The other things that the council and district do are mostly behind the scenes kind of things. A lot of it could be computerized - membership, policies, training.

 

Some units really don't need council, I'm sure. I think you get something out of being "Boy Scouts" - parents know you're part of a larger organization, you get insurance, you get awards you can earn.

 

But I don't know what the council organization itself adds to this. They do some troubleshooting, they are there to aid with organization in the background, but on a day-to-day basis, I know some units could survive without them. I think that they spend a lot of time on fundraising. They spend some time starting up new units.

[BadenP 93]

Do we need the BSA???

 

Depends on how you define who and what the BSA really is and is supposed to do. In the last 20 years there has been a total refocus at National which has severely hurt the program.

 

The original purpose of the BSA was to provide youth with an exciting outdoor program where they learned scoutcraft, leadership, and an appreciation of the outdoors. It has now erroded into a classroom program with too many sedentary activities and a huge deemphasis on the outdoors portion. Many of the new leaders are to blame as much as is National. The result has been a continued decline in membership as the BSA gets further and further away from its origins. There has been an ever increasing anomosity between volunteers and professionals due to National's growing demands for money, money and money. The program has been watered down to the point where the kids find it BORING and not any fun any more. Many unit programs are being run by too many untrained or undertrained volunteers who really are unprepared to give a good and fun program to their youth, and don't seem to care either.

 

So there are many problems with the volunteer and professionals in the BSA with plenty of blame on both sides. Those few units who are running a quality program and growing annually usually have as little to do with council and district as possible, and that is a sad commentary on the current state of the BSA.

[Basementdweller 608]

Had a long day of scouting yesterday and read this thread last night. Slept on it.....

 

 

The National organization.....absolutely.

 

The rest of the structure can be scraped.......

 

Districts could be eliminated completely.......Zero benefit.............I understand there is a lot of district folks here.... My experience is not a rare as you people may think. Most are afraid to post negative experiences in a public forum.....I received a lot of PM's on this board and others I am member of regarding this subject.

 

Rare is the District that functions as intended....our council there is only one district in 8 that actually functions as intended. They hold camporees, cub events, scheduled in person training, a commisioner corp that is functional and helpful.... They have a DE that is more than about the numbers, hey guess what he is an eagle scout and it is a district that holds most of the wealthy suburbs.

 

I am aware that good districts are out there, an endangered species.

 

Councils could be replaced with state wide organizations. So instead of say 10 or so SE's making $150k a year each we have one making say $250k.....sounds like a good trade to me....Not like I actually see the man and I scout 5 days a week........so I should see him a couple of times a year.

 

Sell off most of the scout camps, yep the holy grail......Many are in horrible condition, a perpetual money pit, terrible summer camp programs, terrible food, We really only need three or four outstanding camps per state......My state has like 12....of which three have great programs, 6 mediocre program, the rest terrible merit badge university at best......

 

 

So do I think the BSA will make it another 100 years????? I doubt it, the current practices by the DE and their supervisors will assist in that death.....Real membership numbers are hidden from the membership and public, the use of Learning for life to artificially inflate the membership numbers. If Learning for Life is a separate organization then the finances and structure need to be separate.....This include the membership numbers...

 

 

[desertrat77 1144]

I think we need the BSA.

 

However, we don't the BSA as it is currently organized. Alot of expensive overhead that provides little benefit to where scouting really takes place--the pack, troop, crew, ship, team.

[dhendron 26]

I personally have mixed feelings about it. I see the need for National, at least in terms of providing the basic structure. Region...what do they do? Council? Other than a place to purchase stuff I need (which I can also get from National, and frankly, it is sometimes faster to do that since the local scout shop frequently does not have what I need in stock), my unit doesn't get any real benefit. Too commercial, and every time I turn around I am being asked for money. Geez, I can't even teach a adult or youth Council-sanctioned training without charging more than I need to run the class (I am told I have to charge $6.00 even though I only need about $2.00 to run the classes...the rest goes to Council).

 

District? I see a lot of adults running around doing adult things, but very little, if anything, benefits my unit. In fact, as a Venturing advisor, many times the mainstream events are not really open to my unit unless we volunteer as staff. Mostly, I see adults in the District doing things that benefit the adults, frequent seeking of awards and recognition, and none of this benefits the youth. I always ask, "How does this benefit the youth" but don't get good answers.

 

Really, what I need is the support to help my youth run their unit, go do fun and educational things, earn the awards if they want them. What I don't need: the constant and rising commercialism, constantly being told "no, you can't do that any more", the scout camps in disrepair, the watering down of the awards and achievements, the lost paperwork at Council, and the frequent requests for more and more donations from the adult leaders. In short, I need the BSA I remember as a kid. You got what you needed, you could do the fun things (heck, I remember eating rattlesnake at Camporee, shooting, having a great time, and my dad was not barraged with money stuff).

 

Really, I wish that BSA would stop and look at what we have become, focus our efforts on the youth, back off on the commercialism, and stick to the basics. This is a great organization, or can be anyway, if we just remember what this is all for: the youth.

[Eagledad 2777]

Without the the BSA, there would be no scouting.

 

Those of us who have worked on the membership side of things understand the struggle of older scout programs like Venturing and Venture Patrols. In general new Venturing Crews and Venture Patrols are started by adults who want to experience other areas of the BSA program mainly because they are bored or feel restricted. My observation is three out of four of those programs disolve in four years. I believe Cubs and Troops have a much record because their programs have a much better structure that keeps them functioning with the passion that fuels the older scout programs.

 

Without the basic structure of the Cubs and Scouts provided by the BSA, those individual units would only last as long as the willingness of the adults, then it spud be gone.

 

While I do believe there is some of what Base describes going on, I don't agree it is as much of a problem as he does.

 

One only has to do little research to learn that large churches have more enduring programs than small churches. Experts point out that the average volunteer of any organization gives less than 20 months of service. A program that relies on volunteers to function is a very difficult program to maintain and it requires a large organization to do it. Anybody know of a Badon Powell Troop in your area?

 

Barry

[Basementdweller 608]

Eagledad, maybe it is time for a change.

 

 

Disagree with the term of volunteer service......My shortest term volunteer is 7 months.....tiger parent.....The longest in our organization is 50 years. In the Pack our volunteers average over 30 months for the most part. I am going to say that our average is 8 years if throw out the high and low outliers.

[Eagledad 2777]

>>Disagree with the term of volunteer service..

[JMHawkins 15]

Less than 20 months is a statistic taught in college for long range business planning. It is not specific to any organization but an average of many volunteer organizations from political action organizations to religious organizations. If you compare the work by all the volunteers in the units, you will find the average scouting volunteer actually puts in far less than 20 months. Those of us who put in more are a minority.

 

But of course "those who put in more" are the backbone of the operation. It's their motivations that make or break the program.

 

I suspect the big difference between what I experience in my District (which I'd classify as excellent based on what I read here) and Basement's is the motivation of the long-time District volunteers. Our district is run by basically a bunch of "retired" SMs who get it about boy-led, outdoor adventure. They also get it about providing support to the unit volunteers. From what I've seen of them, their motivations are two-fold: one, see as many boys having fun in outdoor scouting adventures as possible, and two see the adult volunteers have fun as well. The DC told me he thinks Woodbadge is about "the Scouters making sure they have fun too" because without that they eventually run out of steam and fade out of the program.

 

Maybe that's the secret: making sure the Scouters who have fun and remain active as volunteers are the ones who like to go hiking and camping instead of the ones who like paperwork, political infighting, and petty bureaucratic tyranny.

 

In that regard, National isn't really helping.

 

[Beavah 205]

Councils could be replaced with state wide organizations. So instead of say 10 or so SE's making $150k a year each we have one making say $250k.....

 

Yah, be careful what yeh wish for, BD. My understandin' of the current status of the Central Region Area 2 statewide merger is that they promoted most of their current SEs into new "Megacouncil" administrative positions and then are hiring even more executive for "field service" councils within the megacouncil.

 

It's sorta interestin' to watch from afar. Kind of like rubbernecking a train wreck. Hope they get it together though.

 

The lesson from the rest of the world is that of course it's good to have an association to belong to, whether it's a national association or just one of the national associations. Somebody to provide materials and a good deal on uniforms and da sort of common language and some common activities that keeps everyone havin' the sense they are a part of something.

 

I've never been convinced that we need a national service corporation, though, let alone a protected-monopoly national service corporation. I've served at a bunch of levels, and done a bunch internationally where that's not the norm, and I confess I just don't really think it's net value added. Good people servin', got nothing against 'em at all. It's just that da structure and culture seem to get in the way, and tends to insulate folks from kids and volunteers in the field.

 

If there were a startup national outdoor adventure association that pitched its offerings to middle schools and high schools instead of to churches, my guess would be that they'd decimate the BSA. I've been surprised that nobody "real" has moved into the space; so far all we've had are some fringe groups who cared more about their agenda than doin' good outdoor adventure youth work. That never works. Worse, they try to do somethin' with the uniform and badges stuff that the kids don't care for.

 

B