All Activity

It depends on how the district event is set up and where. If it is an NCAP governed event it falls on the Program Director for the event. The buck passes uphill and downhill to the Program Director in those scenarios. If it is not an NCAP governed event it falls on whomever "the lead" is or the council program chair/camping chair/director of field operations/<insert one of the various titles given out council-to-council>. If you have a non NCAP governed event on an NCAP property the ranger can get pulled into the mess; however, it really depends on a bunch of stuff. It's all in that second level of training now. I learned this when the lack of recruitment for my district committee hit a fork in the road and I made a "unscoutlike" comment about how I didn't understand why the DE didn't have a nomination committee bringing in new prospects and was resistant to even the discussion. It turned out that the DE was not trained because it's in that level 2 training (which btw these days is not automatic, a DE has to be recommended for it after serving no less than 2 years).

What parts do you feel do not work well any longer? I totally see this. Here's a good story to illustrate. One of the doctors my kids were seeing was very supportive of scouting. I asked her why she didn't have her kids in scouting. She replied that her husband was an eagle, a veteran, and an accomplished outdoorsman and they simply couldn't handle how poorly every unit in their area functioned so decided to just focus on family camping. I have noticed that the more competent people who have management experience or operational coordination experience struggle the most with scouting. Also key 3 often are selected based on random attributes and not how Scouting America recommends (skills and ability based selection); it becomes impossible to intellectually or emotionally handle dealing with incompetent people who can't handle coordinating enough car space for a weekend campout let alone the far more complex issues that arise within scouting.

This is question can be looked at as where you can improve on using the word stronger (as in, stronger than today). Not areas that you provide strong areas of leadership in. He can provide stronger leadership in Church, if they became more involved. He could provide stronger leadership at YMCA camp. He could provide stronger leadership at School. He could provide stronger leadership at home by leading family activities instead of parents doing it (planning a trip for example or growing vegetables). You and the Scout can put yourself in a box you can't get out of. Or you could choose to encourage the scout to think more expansively.

You have some possible options, it seems. But, if that is not enough to meet it, a discussion of what that means and how it might be applied in some other area in which he might have an interest.

Nope. Parents work for the govt. Church is in and out. Parents take him to school. About the best we came up with is a YMCA camp he goes to for summer day care.

Well, there’s two. Sounds like leadership in his academic trajectory is of immediate importance. Are the family farmers? Have their own business? There might be one or more things that he can do to represent them. Religious life? Is there something he’d like to do for his faith community? How about on the ride to or from school? Maybe he can get to know one thing about each classmate. The requirement shouldn’t be overthought. It’s to help someone realize that leadership opportunities are everywhere. Give the kid at least one simple idea that you think suits him, and ask him to come up with three more. For some kids, structured activities are a no-brainer. For others, it’s noticing little things where they can make a contribution. Be positive, and hopefully this kid will come back to you with some nice ideas.

This requirement makes some assumptions and forces a Scout to lie or not get the merit badge: 9. Document and discuss with your counselor three or more areas in your life outside of Scouting where you feel you can actively provide stronger leadership in: I have a Scout who goes to school, comes home, and does Scouting. That's it. So are Scouts who don't have other activities unable to earn Eagle? The Scout lives in the country with no neighbors around. He doesn't play sports due to his grades being bad this last semester. The areas of his life are Scouts, family, and school. You'd think this would have been more well thought out, considering the MB is all about consideration of others.

Often in Scouting the answers were part of the program; the growth opportunities for the scout. Adults (meaningful) over time have diluted the program and these growth opportunities. Cost being discussed is just one example. The concept of cost was (should still be?) a learning/growth opportunity for scouts. "A scout pays his own way". A simpler program without bells and whistles for which a scout can earn enough with odd jobs, chores, allowances to pay for it. Adults intervened and created troop fundraisers, camps exploited the fundraising and built dining halls and other amenities to summer camps (in contradiction to living under canvas). Costs rose, parents ponied up, to only ask about ROI. Fun and adventure was not enough, merit badges earned became the metric. And the downward cycle continues. BP, West, GBB, etc... understood how all parts of the program were in concert fundamentally held together by the concept of not doing for scouts what they can do for themselves. That glue is what ties the program together, even more than 100 years later. The systematic replacing of that glue by adults to make things more efficient, or more modern or more "xyz" is why the program cannot hold itself together. Adults asking about cost/value is a symptom of the systemic failure of adults in Scouting to adhere to the basic tenets of program delivery in an attempt to increase efficiency, or market share or other business terms. The answers are and have always been in the program delivery; Scouts learning to do for themselves and others.

This thread is really hitting the nail on the head. I wish someone with influence would take note. Many of the other youth programs we've been exposed to either have 1) an affiliation with the school district that allows families to get access to facilities and quality instructors at a greatly subsided rate or 2) a for-profit operator that is highly motivated to provide a quality program. My wife (an IT project manager) is appalled by the way our Pack operates (even though it's probably one of the better units in the area). My response is always the same - "We're just a handful of parents doing our best. No one else will step up."

It's true the high cost of volunteering in scouting is often unacknowledged, especially when compared to other youth activities. This is part of the value perception equation. It's also not as simple as thinking parents want to dump and run. Potential volunteers who are used to operating in more functional organizations find the systemic dysfunction in scouting incomprehensible. The onboarding experience in most youth activities is efficient and user friendly. Trying to onboard in scouts can be an ordeal. That makes the first point of entry a complete turn off for a lot of competent adults. Not necessarily dumping kids but running backwards away from dysfunction.

I partly agree but it's kind of a chicken and egg situation. Value perception is lacking because the program is so difficult to deliver that quality is inconsistent and often poor. But even when well administered there are multiple aspects of the program that no longer work well, appeal to, or provide comparative value to an increasingly large demographic.

WHAT?!?! Please tell me you are joking. That was a significant part of PDL-1 back in the day. Everything from creating a list of prospects, figuring who to go with you to the prospect, how to dress when approaching the prospect, etc. While we use a nominating committee to get names, DEs were also supposed to come up with names for the nominating committee as well. And if you didn't have a nominating committee.... More Later

We live in a large suburban school district. There are 200 boys in my son's class. So far, in elementary school, about 50 of the 200 come out for basketball every year. Of those 50, only 10 make the top team. The cost of youth sports keeps increasing because it's just an arm's race to give your kid a slight advantage. When I was a kid most player development occurred within the (low cost) school program. Today, it's closer to 1/3 (if that). Most kids hone their skills through some combination of private small group training, personal trainers, shooting cages, summer camps, and travel teams. My son is pretty good, but I'm not delusional. I don't think he'll ever play professionally, get a college scholarship, or even start for his high varsity team. I just want him to make the team (if he desires). My wife and I are generally supportive because: He seems to be enjoying himself. He's exercising and socializing. He's established a feedback loop where extra practice and offseason work often results in noticeable improvement. He now gets excited about other pursuits like math and reading because he correlates practice with improvement.

Well said. I could not agree more. Also true.

"Volunteer lead" and "youth lead" are two phrases that are frequently repeated throughout scouting, but are rarely truly implemented. Be a volunteer who questions, and you will not be in that position next time around. My question here is, legally, where does the buck stop if a scout gets hurt at a district event due to failure to follow Scout rules, such as those related to short-term camp? Scoutmaster unit CO volunteer planning commissioner is a DE or ranger if on scout property. So it's truly volunteer-led if you agree with the professionals As to youth lead no real training or trainers are time by venture age yes at 10 no

The councils pass the core fee in its entirety; councils only retain the council fee. DE's are not trained very well. To both of you I want to comment that the DE training is horrible. National waits until a DE is level 2 trained to train them on how to recruit a volunteer district staff. This is a volunteer run organization; the #1 thing every DE should do is know how to identify and recruit volunteers to run their district. I think the training for cub scout volunteers needs to emphasis multiple troop visits to a much larger degree. Not just multiple visits to 1 troop, but multiple troops. As Eagle94 says the program loses a lot of crossovers; in my experience it's in two stages. Stage 1 we plain have scouts just not want to go to a troop because they didn't find a troop they liked (My pack is still sorting this out but it looks like we just lost 5 of 7 AOLs on Dec 31st, they didn't bother to renew because the pack did 2 troop visits this year (versus 7 last year) and the AOLs and families were not interested in either troop.). Stage 2 we lose crossovers at troops who never rank up past AOL before end of year/renewal (my troop just lost somewhere between 6 to 8 crossovers, we're still sorting out if some families didn't renew on time; however, those 6 to 8 have the same thing in common, they were all AOL on Dec 31st). To be clear lack of advancement or recognition is a big deal for these crossovers and I think we lost one of them because the CC was his MBC for a MB and ghosted the kid on a MB he completed. I tried to step in because I also MBC that MB and I got ghosted by the CC. (See the other thread where I complain about fiefdoms and not delivering.)

This isn't true at all. My buddy had to attend every game and practice his daughter played in league volleyball (which cost him $3200 every "Series"/"quarter"/"league period" aka she played 3 a year outside varsity volleyball for all 4 years of high school). There may be some leagues that you can dump and run; however, that is becoming the old standard much like it was the old standard in scouting. As the lawsuit sharks circle dump-and-run is going away even in league sports. I remember him calling me going "I am driving a day and a half to St. Louis right now because if I am not butt in bleachers they will bench my daughter which will threaten her varsity slot when she returns to school.". Dumping and running might have been true in the interarm, but it is going away. It's not declining due to value perception. It's declining due to lack of delivery. On paper the programs provided by Scouting America are among the top youth programs in the world; yes, the world. The problem is that execution of this program is highly variable (even from one side of the town to another), there is no quality control, and councils are too weak to do anything about it because they are too busy trying to survive instead of running the program. Scouting America just lost somewhere between 300k and 500k of it's youth membership in the past 90 days; that membership churn is not a value perception, we sold those families on the value, they where here, they saw the value, they left because we didn't deliver.

I understand what's out there very well. Problems with value perception is why scouting is declining.

Regarding training, I was appalled at what was left out of CS Leader Specific, especially the Webelos Den Leader Specific, compared to the old CS Basic Leader Training. There is no mention of the differences between being a CSDL, and being a WDL, and how the transision is suppose to go. I beleive that the retention rates for Crossed Over Scouts is for this very reason, and national has doubled down on it, making the transition a few months in 5th grade, instead of the 18-24 months. BSA did the research once, and it stated transition takes 18-24 months. Regarding DE training, WOW. Prior to going to PDL-1, we had to have YPT, CSBLT, SM Fundamentals, and Explorer Basic Leader Training. Additional YP stuff was covered, but it was mostly a reemphasis of get the Scout to safety, call the SE, call the police.

Sorry, I put this in the wrong thread... ------------------------------------ The biggest unadvertised cost of Scouting is the amount of volunteer adult support it takes to make a good unit level program happen. No "pitch" that I have ever heard (outside of our unit) tells parents that "We welcome your kids, but you have to come along, too, to help us put on the program." When you do get them to agree to help, then explain that "help" means a variety of getting trained, learning Scout skills so that you know what 'right' looks like, being a merit badge counselor, serving on the committee to help with budget, managing adult training, onboarding, advancement, uniforming, equipment, fundraising, etc, etc, etc, Oh, and we need drivers and adults for camping, too. Once they learn those needs, many are out. They want to take their kids to programs where they can dump and run, or show up occasionally with a tray of orange slices and some juice boxes. Once upon a time, when I served Uncle Sam, our mantra in the Air Force was "We recruit Airmen, but we retain families." And we did PR, ads, benefits, and programs to support that. Attract individuals, but make our environment such that, as they start a family while serving (which many do), we make it comfortable for their family to have the service member stay in. (This mindset varies across the services, though many of the family programs and benefits are duplicated in all services. Health care, base housing, commissary and exchange, MWR [morale, welfare, and recreation], etc. ) Scouting should be, "We recruit families, but we retain the Scout." Get the family on board, and give them benefits for their Scouts (a program of adventure) , and the youth will stay, keeping the parents involved.

The biggest unadvertised cost of Scouting is the amount of volunteer adult support it takes to make a good unit level program happen. No "pitch" that I have ever heard (outside of our unit) tells parents that "We welcome your kids, but you have to come along, too, to help us put on the program." When you do get them to agree to help, then explain that "help" means a variety of getting trained, learning Scout skills so that you know what 'right' looks like, being a merit badge counselor, serving on the committee to help with budget, managing adult training, onboarding, advancement, uniforming, equipment, fundraising, etc, etc, etc, Oh, and we need drivers and adults for camping, too. Once they learn those needs, many are out. They want to take their kids to programs where they can dump and run, or show up occasionally with a tray of orange slices and some juice boxes. Once upon a time, when I served Uncle Sam, our mantra in the Air Force was "We recruit Airmen, but we retain families." And we did PR, ads, benefits, and programs to support that. Attract individuals, but make our environment such that, as they start a family while serving (which many do), we make it comfortable for their family to have the service member stay in. (This mindset varies across the services, though many of the family programs and benefits are duplicated in all services. Health care, base housing, commissary and exchange, MWR [morale, welfare, and recreation], etc. ) Scouting should be, "We recruit families, but we retain the Scout." Get the family on board, and give them benefits for their Scouts (a program of adventure) , and the youth will stay, keeping the parents involved.

What type of fees does each council pass on to the national level? Wondering what the fees to the council will be if there are fewer councils. I must agree that adult training is a joke. The few DEs I knew well enough to talk honestly, their training was just as bad. Ask one about a YPT question, and his answer is that it is coming in level 2 training.

You should take some time to understand that in the market basket of extracurricular activities scouting is competing with everything from a pack of kids in a basement playing dungeons and dragons to $400 a week private league sports. If people are getting a good return on their time and money, they will spend the money. League sports are growing 43% year-over-year while scouting is shrinking and currently at 20% of it's peak membership.

This is what I understand. The membership churn is killing the membership numbers. We did recruit 260k "new" scouts in 2025; however, based on the numbers shared with me we lost somewhere between 300k and 500k existing scouts. If we don't deliver on our promises of an excellent outdoor leadership program scouts and their families will keep voting themselves off the island and leave scouting. National needs to enforce quality control and modernization; how can expect a unit to properly execute the program when 4 out of 5 adult leaders are so incompetent they can't do free online training? Paid scouters are scrambling to save their jobs, they don't care to save the program; national must force council consolidations to get the focus back on program and off of fundraising.

Thank for the correction. You are right, it is end of month, June 30th, and Dec. 31st.