Eagledad

I’m am a mixed age patrol guy. I’ve tried them all and the fastest scout growth occurs in patrols with older aged and experienced mentor role models. But, building patrols is not easy. It takes experience. I agree to a point that the scouts have to be involved. But, if the adults (role model, mentors) struggle, the scouts certainly will. Don’t throw them in dark without some kind of guidance and plan. Work as a team with everyone understanding the goal as well as the challenges. Make the successes and failures a team responsibility so that both scouts and adults work the problem together. I promise the scouts take these things to heart and will work to fix challenges the next time. They don’t like it any more than adults. And you will be amazed how seriously they do these things as the troop learns and grows when they know that the adults have their back. This subject is an example that scouting is hard and the more the adults and scouts work as a team, the more confident everyone feels trying new ideas to improve the experience. Scouting is a safe place because failure is an opportunity to grow. That goes as much for the adults as it does for the scouts. Another deep discussion is news scouts and how to get them merged in the troop. But, that is a different subject for another day. Merry Christmas everyone. Barry

I understand what you are saying, but my experience with adults is that less is more. Adults tend to hinder the scouts' growth in character because, by their nature, adults don't like youth making bad decisions. I'm not sure what you consider average skills. Are knots, lashings, and orienteering average skills you're speaking about? Still, the troop program is designed so that scouts lead and manage their activities. That program doesn't require many adults. Of course, scouts have to continually grow to develop the skills for dealing with the responsibilities of running the program and their personal growth. A mature program requires a minimum number of adults because the scouts are responsible for the program's activities and business, including training. The challenge for units is having a resource pool of skilled experts to prevent stumping scout growth. Barry

Yes, my delegating comment was for the program 25 or 30 years ago when there were still many experienced Scouters. My point about the adults in today's scouts program is a different situation. I'm pretty creative when looking for solutions, but this one is a challenge. The program now, whatever it's called (part of the problem), needs big changes in identity and training. Barry

If the unit commissioner isn't working, it's the DE's fault. I have seen districts with great Commission Corp, and it's a beautiful thing to watch. However, the DC's job is complicated and requires above-average skills and training. Most districts don't recruit people capable of developing and using those skills. Yep. In the earlier days, before 1990, 80% of unit leaders were scouts as a youth. So, they walked knowing more about the game than the purpose. They basically stepped into the position running, and the implementation wasn't overly complex. Today's unit is lucky to have 25% leaders with a youth scouting experience. Training just doesn't meet the need for new adult leaders without a youth scouting experience. It's not so simple. Learning the skills on your list, much less knowing when to use them, takes a long time. One-year first-class scouts are typically terrible with skills. Mostly because a program that encourages earning First Class in one year isn't a good skills program anyway. I've trained and counseled a lot of scoutmasters without a youth scouting experience, and most quit in a couple of years, realizing they were not right for the job. However, I believe they would have been fine if they had been willing to delegate skills they lacked to others. I had the skills but rarely needed them because I was a delegator and liked to get other people involved. And, there are very few skills adults need to know that older scouts can't do themselves. But, in almost every case of the scoutmasters I counseled, the scoutmaster took on the responsibility because they wanted to be head honcho, and the responsibilities didn't look hard. Their ego was the problem. The program has a big challenge today because most of the leaders they get today don't have an understanding of the program from youth experience, so they see it from a different perspective. Typically, it is not a perspective that is fun for the youth. Also, the program has changed in the last few years, so its newer identity is not attractive to the last generation of scouts. My 37- and 40-year-old sons aren't interested in being leaders because what they see doesn't appear like the program they had in the late 90s. Barry

Well said. Humility is the fertile ground for the growth of integrity. Barry

A lot. But it’s not new. As we’ve discussed before, over 50% of Webelos 2s don’t crossover into troops. Add in the number of cubs that quit in the other 4 years. And just about all that is on bad adult leadership. I’m guessing nationally that at least 60% of cubs don’t don’t finish the cub program. The troop program has the problem that troops loose more first year scouts than any other year in the BSA program. BUT, to be fair, most bad leaders are parents with average skills. The Cub program is over burdened and overly complicated for parents with average skills. The training and professional support doesn’t supplement these parents enough to bring their skills up to lead a quality program. Parents with skills for a quality program typically were scouts as a youth. Especially in troops. The Cub program needs an overhaul. Barry

I was the Dist Membership Chair between 1995 and 2000. National polled our opinions of the early Tiger program and what changes would improve the program. I was shocked to learn that the changes in 1999 were the opposite of the suggestions we provided. I ran the district meeting that announced the changes to the packs, and they were not received well. Two packs quit their Tiger program, and several others didn't add the changes. We learned later that National based their program changes from polls of Tiger parents. Not pack leaders. That also explains why National went to the much more expensive blue shirts from the much cheaper Tiger T-shirts. That was another big deal for young, busy parents who were deciding whether to join. Barry

Yep, National made major changes to the Tiger program in 1999, switching from 2 meetings a month to 4 meetings and requiring an adult to attend all activities with each Tiger scout. The Cub program was already overburdened, but those changes added insult to injury and made it less desirable to busy parents. The drop was predictable, as was the sudden drop of Troops four years later that resulted from the decline of the Cub program. If I remember right, membership had been dropping in the early 1990s until the war in Iraq. The sudden boost of patriotism seemed to motivate temporary growth in the BSA. Barry

Transgenderism is a future liability issue that was discussed on this forum a few years ago. One example of Nationals membership changes that are ironically making scouting more exclusive. Barry

I admit I don’t understand this comment. Do all youth live in a cocoon except during scouting activities. Except for sports, youth are coed in just about all their activities since the age for Mother’s Day out. in fact, I think one would struggle to get through a day without doing at least one coed activity. Single gender scouting is not depriving anyone from developing awareness of the other gender on the broader front. Barry

Not everyone wants coed. Barry

Well said. We found that while many scouts get leadership experience, leadership skills are learned more by watching other leaders. And leadership training doesn't add much to the development. Which is why we stopped offering repetitive annual leadership development courses and started offering leadership tuning courses on demand. Why attend a skill you already know when instead get instruction for an area of leadership that you are struggling with? Outdoors truly is the foundation for scouting because it puts the scouts in a challenging environment where they must make survival decisions. If you watch closely, you see that the patrol members must make many decisions just to cook a meal. The farther the patrol gets from working as a team, the more they struggle to enjoy a tasty meal. The outdoors forces evaluations of bad decisions and rewards for good decisions. The outdoors forces wisdom and integrity simply through the efforts of surviving the campout. The biggest hindrance to that growth is the adults not allowing the scouts to have that experience. Adults can only get out of the way by separating their camp 200 feet away from the scout's camp. I love this scouting stuff. Barry

It makes sense, efficiency with limited resources of adults would encourage a coed program. Barry

Are you saying an option for full coed or single-gender patrols or just full coed? I can't believe I'm saying this, but maybe National knows something you don't. Barry

The troop membership trend used to reflect the pack membership trend five years later. But the Cub growth in 2022 makes me wonder if adding girl membership will change that factor. I would be curious to know how much membership changes in the GSUSA from 10-year-olds to 12-year-olds. Do girls lose interest as the program becomes more outdoor? That is when my daughter quit. Barry

This has been a pretty common discussion for 30 years. I researched and found that most families leave scouting mainly because of burnout from the Pack program. Less than 50 percent of second-year Webelos cross over to the troops. They leave because their program, led by burned-out adults, is boring. Many folks suggest moving 5th graders to the Troops, but I am skeptical because of their maturity. The first-year troop scouts have the highest dropout rate of any group in the program, and I am concerned that 5th-grade scouts would worsen the problem. The Tiger-age scouts need to be moved out of the pack program because their toddler maturity (reading, patience, and listening) doesn't fit in with the maturity of the rest of the scouts. I could see a hybrid program for the second-year Webelos in which the troops could assist with it. Even just meeting at the same location as the troop during a troop meeting makes a difference. A weak leader could easily ask for assistance during a difficult meeting, and the Webelos could watch the older scout program in action. I've experimented with the Hybrid approach, and it works if the troop is on board. While I'm glad National is trying to streamline the program, I am disappointed to learn they didn't shorten the Cub years. I'm sure they've heard the complaint because it is discussed often, and I personally complained to National about it 25 years ago. I think they are afraid to lose the Tigers, but I'm confident that membership would increase at all program levels within five years. Barry

The only way I could track real numbers when I was District Membership Chair was 1 to 1 contact. A very frustrating number is Webelos who join troops but never show up. That number stays on record for almost a year. And it's a pretty high number. Nationally at the time a little over 50% of Webelos did not cross over to troops. But the number is much higher when the no-show cross-overs are added. Which they never are. And, because the no-show Scouts are included in the 1st year drop outs, that number is over inflated. Why is that a big deal; because troop 1st year drop outs is the largest group membership drop out since National started tracking membership. Barry

Good question; my perspective is complicated, so I had to think about how to simplify my opinion. The answer is Expectation. There is a saying, "Scouting is a game with a Purpose." As an engineer, I think pragmatically and study gray areas presented to me to see how to change them into black and white. During 1993 and 2005, I was a member of the District and council. As a result, I worked on membership numbers and studied where the numbers fell. I think the BSA membership was highest since the 1960s around 1995. There was a slight decline after 2000, but this can be attributed to National shooting itself in the foot with an overburdened Cub Scout program that drove away adults from burnout. Lets look at this forum. During the 1990's this forum displayed the number of members logged in to the forum. I don't know if we have that now, but I never saw less than 300 between 1995 and 2005. It was typically around 800 or so and even got up to 1200. I don't know what it is today or even the last few years, but I can't see it getting up to 50. Maybe I'm wrong, but the same dozen or so of us are active. 25 years ago 85 percent of the discussions were in the General Scouting forum and the Patrol Method forum. When was the last time there was a discussion in the Patrol Method forum lately? Folks don't come to Scouter.com to talk about the process; they basically come to push an agenda that has little to do with the interaction of running a unit. This forum is basically dead from its intended purpose. What has changed? The first time I saw a big hit in forum membership was when National changed membership to include gays. Now, while you and a few others like to downcast the BSA as the evil organization that wanted to keep religious males as privileged members, gays wasn't a general issue to the population. Yes, a few folks came on and said the sky was falling because we weren't being inclusive. But, as I said, the slight drop in membership was, and still is, a reflection of internal mismanagement of the program. So, when the National changed the membership policies to accept gays, it was a bit of a surprise. Many folks cheered the change and were waiting for membership to rise and funding to grow. In fact, quite the opposite happened. Membership dropped, I think, around 20 percent, but funding took a huge turn. I believe that policy change did greater harm than anyone realized; it exposed the leaders at National to being more liberal and shifting the program left. And that changed the perspective of the scouting to population as a real shift away from a Game with a Purpose to a Game, or as I like to call it, an after-school camping program. For almost 100 years, the image of Scouting has been a program for developing character in our youth. As a troop leader, I have heard many parents admit putting their sons in the program to further develop them into better men of character. Not a program to busy the young lads for camping, but actual growth of values. Of course, that was the motivation of single mothers. However, many, my own parents included, wanted their sons to experience an environment where positive character was displayed and practiced. National is losing that image. First by changing membership and then by driving away from a character values program. But, the change was made and for the first time that anyone can remember, the image of scouting was changing (Expectation). A lot of folks here believe that accepting girls into the program was the straw that broke the camel's back, but I think it only solidified to most people outside of the program that the organization leaders were going full speed into a progressive program. It was no longer a program of values for developing values; it changed into just another youth activities program. And giving a choice of travel soccer or going camping once a month, well, somehow camping doesn't have the appeal. Personally, I think the worst thing National could have done was change the name. The traditional name Boy Scouts is attached with honor and might be of some consideration for parents looking for a program to place their kids. The only thing this program has left is the uniform. I didn't realize until Scouts in the traditional uniform approached me for making a popcorn sale. That basic uniform image has been around for at least 100 years and still has an emotional pull. But I expect that will change here pretty quickly. Even folks on this forum can't speak kindly of the program before the membership changes. OK, that was a lot, and that is a tenth of what I planned to say. But that is what I see changed in scouting. Barry

I don't know what all this "Scouts are Scouts" stuff is about. But I think many here wish for a program that is as respected as it was in the 1990s but fits all today's culture check marks. As I see it now, the program is the most inclusive it has ever been but has the lowest numbers in decades. Maybe the program that many are pushing is not really Scouting, and folks today can see the difference. Barry

You mean the CHEERFUL SERVICE to others? They are doing to OA what they did to Wood Badge: keeping the name of honor but changing the program to fit a different agenda. Barry

""For over 100 years, the Order of the Arrow (OA) has recognized Scouts and Scouters who best exemplify the Scout Oath and Law in their daily lives. This recognition provides encouragement for others to live these ideals as well. Arrowmen are known for maintaining camping traditions and spirit, promoting year-round and long term resident camping, and providing cheerful service to others."" Like BSA National, OA leaders lost their understanding of the virtues that made Arrowmen exceptional scouts. Camping and cheerful service are full-time responsibilities of themselves. Arrowmen in my council, when I was a scout, were the special forces of scouts. They exemplified living the Scout Oath and Law and they were experts on outdoor skills. Honestly, I was shocked what OA had turned into when I came back in the mid 90s to be a leader. If I were to go back into scouts, BIG IF, it would be to fix OA in our District. Scouts would be held to always wearing the uniform published in the Scout handbook (only one recognition for OA). Arrowmen would be expected to camp with their troop monthly to be role models for outddoor skills, Cheerful service, and living the Scout Law. They would be trained and expected to know all the skills in the Scout Handbook. They would have a minimum expectation of attending leading service teams, and meetings would be held to train skills and learn and reinforce the virtues of Cheerful Service, Scout Oath, and law. Scouts willing to be held responsible for those expectations would be the best of the best and set the standard for all scouts to strive for. Yes, it would be hard work, but it would sort out those scouts and Scoutmasters just looking for another patch. It would not be a program that is attractive to older scouts; it would be a program attracted to dedicated mature scouts. OA would once again be a true scouting honor society. Barry

I agree with the conflict of interest. I suggest the CC ask for help from the District Commissioner AND from the Council, likely the DE. Barry

Well, National better do something quick because changing the name to Scouts BSA adds more confusion to a population that isn’t keeping up with the changing program. The name itself is confusing; the program is no longer just for boys, so keeping BSA in the name seems weird. If National changes the uniform, it’s over. Nobody will know who they are. My advise, from experience, is running a great local program will get the most attention from outsiders. But, great programs are the result of creating activities outside the expectations of the printed program. Adventure, Adventure, Adventure. Barry

Yep. The Key 3 (DE, District Chairman, and District Commissioner) are supposed build the district program around the Council vision using the training provided to all the District Committee Chairmen. The idea works great on paper, but you can see the risk of success simply by the important players in the design. The likely hood of a district with a well performing DE, District Chair and District Commissioner all at the same time is very rare. Recruiting is an under-respected skill that leads to low performing people being put in positions that require high performance for successful outcomes. The best I ever saw our district perform was from a DE who knew how to recruit talent for the key district positions. I asked how he did it, he said he would go to unit activities and watch the people who made things happen. Then I recruit them. Sounds simple, but it’s not. Barry

Well said. I disagree, but well said. I used to poll the scoutmasters at Woodbadge with a few basic questions like: "Have you read the SM Handbook? What is the BSA Mission Statement? What are the Three Aims and Eight Methods? It's safe to say that only extreme scouting nerds know the Mission Statement. I don't think it works for or against the motivation of parents. I used to teach leadership, and one of the subjects we discussed was creating mission statements. A mission statement's intent is to focus on an idealistic goal, guided by valued principles toward that goal. Not just scouting, but all mission statements. Mission statements are short and easy to understand. Building ethical and moral decision-makers using the Scout Law is idealistic and provides the principles of the Scout Law to focus on the direction of the goal. As I said, most adult Scouters don't even know there is a mission statement. Our PLC knew it because I explained that everything we did in the program was intended to guide scouts toward the goal of making moral and ethical decisions. And if I could not explain to their understanding how part of the program didn't lead them to that goal, I would take it out. Uniforms was their first test, LOL. I won. Mission Statements are required as a compass to guide the rest of the program in one direction when others unintentionally try to force change. However, mission statements are only the bricks of the program structure; a plan (cement) is also required to strengthen the program's integrity. Ah, that's where the Aims and Methods come in. Aims are used by the adults for measuring the scouts' performance of the Eight Methods, which are the responsibility of the scouts. There is a method to the madness, No, the scouts don't discuss instilling the values of the scout oath and law much because it would put them to sleep in a program designed for adventure. And let's remember, scouting is an adult program intended to turn youth into adults of character. So, they don't have to be wise in the complexity of developing character. They only need to play the game to develop character habits. I agree, but I think the issue is who the customers are that we need to sell to. Everyone is pointing at the Scouts. But mom and dad put most of their sons and daughters into the program. Most scouts never had a choice until they got older. I don't want to take away from marketing adventure, everyone likes adventure. But Mom and Dad need more than adventure. Actually, I think they had it up until recently because Character has always been part of the reputation. What I'm hearing from many parents who were scouts is that the program is changing away from the program they were experienced and not for the better. What I'm hearing from parents who weren't scouts as a youth is that they don't know enough about the program to choose it over T-Ball. There just isn't much of marketing of scouting going on. Here is an example of marketing that would grab the attention of parents: Also, I've noticed that we don't see scouting in public like we used to. They are not in Scouting For Food around here anymore. Thousands of scouts from ages 5 to the real-old out in the neighborhoods volunteering for a great cause. That was great marketing. Parades? Where are the scouts? We seem to agree on most things. I wanted to share my perspective on where we differ. Barry