Open Discussion - Program
Share Scouting Topics here.
Subforums
-
- 816
- posts
-
- 2.8k
- posts
9761 topics in this forum
-
- 0 replies
- 913 views
-
- 0 replies
- 949 views
-
- 0 replies
- 953 views
-
- 5 replies
- 3.6k views
-
- 13 replies
- 2.9k views
-
- 0 replies
- 863 views
-
- 0 replies
- 1k views
-
- 1 reply
- 913 views
-
- 5 replies
- 1.5k views
-
- 1 reply
- 1k views
-
- 0 replies
- 872 views
-
- 1 reply
- 1.1k views
-
- 0 replies
- 965 views
-
- 1 reply
- 1.1k views
-
- 1 reply
- 1.1k views
-
LATEST POSTS
-
This is being discussed/was discussed in another thread and I think the answer to the appreciation issue is uniform knots, further OA recognition (brotherhood, vigil, etc ... ). -
Perhaps a naive query, but it came to mind again when pondering how we used to do work weekends and OA functions at the local camp. Numerous adults with professional skills showed up with their tools, and even on occasion with crews. While few of the pro's were so naive to charge them, in a couple instances it did happen, and you likely never sawy those people again. But, perhaps as an incentive, those type of voluteers might be offered automatic paid membership for themselves and their youth. Similar to the concept with the Military option now. NEVER have the audacity to insult people by NOT appreciating them, and surely not giving them a bill when their work and generally supplies are free. -
The core problem is that Scouting America cannot generate enough revenue to have enough paid staff. Maybe the answer is that what Scouting America sells can only be measured in a subjective manner, and that subjectivity limits the ability of the organization to have a pricing structure and billing model that allows it to function in any other manner than volunteer based? How do other organizations in the same youth serving space approach this challenge? The answer is they charge higher fees in order to hire qualified paid staff at the grassroots level. Those higher fees pay the immediate salaries and operating costs, a percentage filters up to pay the regional and national costs, the operational model is high engagement through aggressive marketing with multiple short windows of activity and guaranteed results. Let us use this years kickers camp(s) for my daughter as an example. This year kickers camp was split into 7 different camps and spread throughout the year, each camp costs $200. Each camp presents 6 hours of group instruction spread across 3 days. Each camp focuses on a specific skill; the club guarantees that if my daughter shows up on time, in the proper uniform, ready to drill, that she will absolutely learn the skill; they present how they measure the skill attainment, and tell me what each skill is the foundation for, or needed for, to take her soccer career to the next level. They justify the cost of the program and prove the success of the program by presenting figures on how many of their camp attendees go on to play varsity soccer, retain varsity slots, and go on to club sport or college teams. All that being said I think the business model shift in Scouting America that would be needed to get enough paid staff to move away from a volunteer based structure is not palatable to the organizations legacy members/supporters/Eagle Scouts.
-
I hear you and it would be nice if we could go back to that but it's a nice dream, not reality. I think we've discussed this before. The old model you are talking about hasn't worked for decades. Scouting needs a total corporate restructuring that re-engineers the structure around serving units to deliver the program in the field. It needs more professional support if anything, or at least professional support that is refocused and redeployed. Where will the money come from? I don't know, but that's what a restructuring would start looking at. -
Adding paid professionals isn't an option. For every paid professional you add to a council you have a direct dollar-for-dollar transfer away from program. Nationals model of helping councils is grant based. Grant based headcount is inherently unstable and unreliable due to the come-and-go nature of grants. There are no employees to send to the councils to help either. National has around 700-800 employees total depending on the moment. Most of those employees are high adventure base staff (EG: Todays news reports on the Northern Tier evacuations is that 200 staff are being evacuated along side any remaining scouts on trek). The math is that national basically puts ALL OF ITS MONEY into staffing program a the high adventure bases and the Irving office is basically empty. If districts and councils don't lean hard into recruiting volunteers they will cease to exist, volunteer based councils are the only way forward.
-
-
Who's Online (See full list)