Eagledad

If I remember right, the BSA made big membership gains in the early 90's where they had the most scouts ever. I can't remember the details, the 90s were a huge boon for membership. Theory is the Gulf war inspired a lot of patriotism. The big decline really started after 2000. I do not believe the gay issue is smoke and mirrors because it was even a topic of several discussions here at work with folks who didn't have boys or kids. Everyone knew about it. In fact my fear was many parents stayed away from the BSA more to just not get in discussions with friends who were judging. And history supports it as well because every youth scouting organization that made the gay membership change took big hits. Only the Scouts in England have recovered as far as I know. Now a lot of folks think allowing women leaders was a big boost to the program. I don't know how that can be measured, but I will say that most of the changes we have seen in training in the last 20 years are a result of the huge influx of inexperienced adult leaders. Does that make a difference? Well many here believe the number one reason the BSA doesn't have a good image today is because it is getting away from the out doors. It certainly isn't promoting it as much. It is fair to say that almost 3/4 or new adult leaders today have never camped in their life before joining the BSA. They don't have any memories of camping or scouting as a youth. They only have training. Before the women leaders policy change, it went without saying that most leaders had at least camped in their youth and likely had some boy scout experience. You don't think that has something to do with those who have some control of image? So, trying to figure this out is a lot more complicated than comparing membership numbers 50 years apart. National has made A LOT of major policy and program changes that have had a "Huge" "Huge" effect on the program. Most folks here know that I am no fan of the Tiger program. I believe it is a major contributor to adult burnout which has led to less than 50 percent of Webelos not making it to the Troop program. Maybe what we are really dealing with here is that the present image of the BSA is a casualty of the natural evolution of progress and we shouldn't fight it. Some of the old timers here are mocking traditional scouting anyway, so maybe it is time to accept a paradigm shift. That is what the Girl Scouts have been doing. Barry

A lot of packs, including ours, has the same tradition of the 2nd year Webs doing B&G. We fixed our long B&G by doing the Crossover at the Pack Meeting before or after the B&G. Actually the parents (everyone) liked that change because it made the B&G much easier to plan, and a lot shorter in length. Barry

That is pretty cool. Barry

Yes, I did it when I was SM of 90 scouts and the present SM is doing it now with about 60. It just has to be an expected part of the program so the process develops in that direction. Barry

Thanks Barry

Bad Wolf, I can only say that your troop's goals are different than ours. Our scouts can manage the elections and leadership responsibilities without the adults. Like Twocub, we don't use leadership for advancement. If scouts need a POR to advance, they figure something out. But our PLC works very hard, so you don't see scouts looking for a POR there just to knock of a rank requirement. And SM special projects are rare and usually only for a handicap scout. Barry

I'm still not sure what the point of this discussion, or if there really ever was one. Why the sudden latest decline, it is a guess without all the numbers that the gay issue hit the BSA hard, but it is a pretty safe guess. Personally I think the BSA is fairing better than I thought. The same left turn move hit the Girls Scouts and Campfire kids pretty hard and almost took the Canadian Scouts down completely. In fact compared to what the Canadian Scouts were in the mid 90s before their progressive policy changes, the Canadian Scouts ARE dead. But, all that being said, the BSA has internal program policies that are killing numbers as well. Tigers and Webelos both loose almost 50% of their scouts. That is a huge problem. But I'm not sure that the OP is even talking about that. So what is this discussion really about? How to build elite units? What is that? Barry

It doesn't really matter Bad Wolf what system a troop uses as long as the scouts manage it themselves and use it to provide leadership growth. I have seen dozens of different styles of election processes that work. I know of a troop with about 50 scouts that uses Stosh's style. It's harder for the adults in bigger troop to keep up with, but that is generally the case for troops with a lot of patrol independence. I find many election styles work fine so long as the scouts feel they aren't being held back by the process. Barry

This takes a little time because it works best when the scouts hold each other accountable. And while they are talking a big story now, they will find that holding their best friend accountable isn't always as easy as that sounds. I was just saying another thread that one reason scouting units struggle at the adult level is because adults don't hold each other accountable. They don't want to be a that confrontational bad guy. So encourage all the scouts to hold everyone accountable. For example, I remember a scout who cut his foot pretty bad because he ran through camp barefooted, which is against troop policy. This happened right in front of the SPL, but when I asked who else saw him run through camp and didn't say anything, half the troop raise their hand. So I held all those scouts accountable and gave them a harsher SM conference because they didn't stop their fellow scout from breaking policy and having to go to the emergency room as a result. I worked with every PLC to support each other and work as a team as they worked with the scouts. If a senior leader is having difficulty with an unruly scout, another scout nearby should quietly walk over to help the first scout instead of waiting until the situation escalates to yelling. I wanted the PLC to set an example of everyone taking responsibility for each others behavior and not be afraid to say something. And it works, in a couple years the troop will have very few misbehaviors because the scouts have learned how to nip them in the bud. They don't even realize they are doing it. "Hey Bob, quit running and get some shoes on before you get hurt". As an adult, you will find that boys this age actually hate chaos and lazyness of others, but they don't feel they have permission to hold those scouts accountable. Up to this point in their lives, they have been taught to hand these matters to adults. Now you have to give those scouts permission to act adult and hold their fellow scouts up to the expectations of the patrol or troop. They want that responsibility, they just need to be shown that they have permission. As our troop got bigger, we had less misbehavior and accountability issues because the scouts just got better at doing it themselves. Once you start seeing it come together, you find yourself loving this scouting stuff. It really works. Barry

Yes, well sort a. As you said, there many variables and they change. But the main objective is for the scouts to have fun. For that to happen, the adults have to enjoy what they are doing. So we build around making the program as fun for the adults as it is for the scouts. The Den leaders are only asked to plan and run three den meetings a month. That's it. The Pack plans one pack activity each month like a swimming party, campfire, roller skate night, pinewood derby, blue and Gold and so forth. Typically non registered parents plan all those activities. The pack does its annual planning every July so the CC can start recruiting as soon as possible. Also to help lessen the risk of burn out, just about every volunteer has an assistant that could take over if ever needed. That worked well for us during my first three years in Cub Scouts because we had three good committee chairmen transfer out of the state. Each time the assistant stepped in without missing a beat. We are pretty good at recruiting, so that helps us a lot. But some packs struggle getting volunteers leaving the adults to start taking on multiple duties. We teach pack leaders to instead scale down their program to save themselves from burnout. We encourage packs to focus first on high quality fun den meetings. Less than 50% of Webelos nationally crossover to troops. Boring den meetings were found to be the main reason that at least 70% of those scouts didn't continue on to the troops. The other pack activities are nice, but it is the den meetings that makes a fun rewarding program. So instead of a mediocre yearly agenda full of activities that wears out the adults. Focus "First" on quality Den programs, and then as the pack finds more resources, add the other activities. But don't take away from good quality den meetings. Fun den meetings start with enthusiastic adults planning and running those meetings. Do what it takes to keep the den leaders happy and enthusiastic with their responsibilities. As I said, to run a Pack program the way National presents it is way too hard for the average parent, so scale it down to make it workable and FUN for the adults. If the adults are enjoying the program, they will bring their kids. And isn't that really the point. Barry

You are asking a very good and very complex question. For one thing, many folks, including me, like to compare management for volunteer organizations the same as businesses. But over the years I learned the two are apples and orange from each other. A business has the time and money to train and groom its employees for long future expectations. Cub Scouts has five years “At Best†for training, grooming and leading, and then then they are gone. Businesses will eventually shutdown if they don’t create profit. But I have watched Scouting units doing the same wrong things over and over, without ever having to shut down only because they are fed new families every year which don’t know a good program from a bad one. Since there is little visible measurable profit to represent success in a pack, there is also little visible measurable failure. So the same old issues like burnout repeat themselves over and over. Businesses can sort out bad employees by asking them to move on. Asking bad volunteers to find another unit is very very rare because most folks would rather put up with bad volunteers than to be a confrontational bad guy. There is little incentive to be confrontational and demand better service in a volunteer organization. Despite some opinions on this forum, the BSA does provide pretty good training to manage a scouting unit. The problem is how closely a person chooses to use the training guidelines over their own instinctive approach. Some people are just terrible at scouting but love being the person everyone looks up to. There are very few mechanisms in the system to change that situation. I over the years have come to agree with you that burnout is the leading problem with struggling units, especially Cub packs. Cub Scouts is too long and too complicated for the average volunteer to manage. I say it again with capitals for emphasis: CUB SCOUTS IS WAY TOO COMPLICATED AND WAY TOO LONG FOR THE AVEAGE VOLUNTEER TO MANAGE. I learned in school that the average person is only motivated to give about 20 months of volunteer time to a volunteer organization. THAT IS LESS THAN TWO YEARS, and we expect adults to give us five years of enthusiastic service in the Cub program? Three is too much, but at least there is light at the end of the tunnel in the 3rd year. Five years is just a long dark cave with no end in sight. I advise adults to develop a program where adults are expected a maximum of three years of service. Use a retired Bear Leader to lead and run the Tiger program. Don’t recruit Tiger parents at all for anything and instead encourage them to observe and enjoy the program. Pick a Wolf Parent to assist the Cub Master for taking over the responsibility during their sons Bear year. Don’t encourage “any volunteer†to take on more responsibilities than the responsibilities they were specifically trained. I have seen so many Pack pile on their Den Leaders. Den Leaders should lead the Den and no more. CC should recruit none registered parents to plan and lead activities like Pinewood Derbies and Blue and Golds. If a pack can develop their program so that a volunteer joins knowing they are only expected to give NO MORE than three years of their time, then we find that the program not only become more manageable, it becomes more enjoyable for everyone. And when the adults are having fun, the boys will certainly have more fun. I did the research and found that packs where the adults had fun and weren’t burning out had a 90% crossover rate of Webelos. The reason is burned out adults don’t provide a fun program for the boys. The boys naturally have the same expectation for their future in scouting as the present. So if they aren’t having fun now, they don’t expect it to get any better next year. On the opposite side, happy adults who enjoy their volunteer work carry that into a fun program for the boys, which translate into boys looking forward to the next year’s adventure, including in the troops. And it all works. We created programs to help packs get to that point and the crossover numbers reflected the changes. Sadly I think National is working against us in the area of Cub Leader burnout because they keep adding responsibilities on the adults. But if the adults understand just how much they can do without getting burned out, then they can develop the program within those limits. Our pack worked pretty hard on that concept and our Tigers and Webelos crossover numbers were well above 90%. But the day I really appreciated how well our pack worked was when I attended the Eagle Court of Honor for one of my past Webelos. He said that while he had a lot of fun in the troop, Webelos in our pack was the most memorable time of his scouting career. That really says a lot more about the pack as a whole than my Webelos Den because the den was a result of a lot of work of the whole pack program. Hope this helps toward your question. Barry

Yes, troops usually see about a five year lag of membership change trends. I remember our membership committe predicting a negative trend in the troops as a result of Cub membership changes in 2000.

While I agree that marketing the BSA at the unit level is terrible, I would never put any of the blame of declining numbers on them. First of all, program marketing at the unit level today hasn't change much from the days when numbers were increasing. Second, units only provide the program that is given to them by National. They can't be blamed, negatively or positively, for changes that effect the program performance and public image. If the BSA desires to change its image, it will have to come from the top. Barry

Yah, that is pretty impressive. I look forward to future post. Barry

Well I know it seems compelling, but I don't think the economy has much play in the decline. I used to interview Webelos scouts and parents to learn why the families did or didn't crossover. I found the first response of families quitting weren't usually truthful because the reason was more complicated than a quick answer. Sports is typically the number one first reactionary or fake reason, but as I let them talk and open up about their Cub Scouting experience, the boys didn't enjoy the Cubs and just didn't see any fun in the future of scouting. The parents didn't want to hassle with it anymore. I have often said that Cubs is too long and burns out the adults resulting in a decline at all ages including Venturing. I could be wrong, but cost isn't that much different compared to other youth activities, so I have to believe these families are quitting for other reasons. As to what can be done to change scouting, I think there are some pretty good responses to changing scouting's image. Just how much marketing do we see on media for scouting anymore. How much recruiting is word of mouth? Barry

It was only a few days ago that Stosh suggested that Traditional Scouting was the wrong direction for running patrol method, so I'm not sure what this topic is all based from. We on the inside know where the program struggles and needs changes, but from the outside, the program as a whole is running against a big Pop Culture media ride where adventure requires little more physical or mental effort than turning on the TV and computer. Camping out doors is not appealing against video games. So scouting at the very least has an image challenge against technology. Go ask the average young teen what they would like to do next weekend and see how often fishing, hunting, hiking or camping comes up. At best you might get some biking in there somewhere. However, as I said, the culture is media driven. If National could and would spend the money required to saturate a young persons mind through media of a fun program that takes kids to part of the county they have never seen before, they might get somewhere. Barry

LOL, yah who knows how, where and when terms were made popular. We heard and learned the term back in 1995 by an backpacking guide. Not from scouting. But who knows where the they learned them. Barry

Probably true, but we learned term by LNT backpacking guides. Barry

Sumping is where the every single bit of food is consumed with the objective of leaving the cooking and eating utensils basically clean, basically. Then at the next meal time after a pot of water is brought to a boil, the cooking and eating utensils are dunked for sterilizing. Once sterilizing is done, cooking can be started using the boiled water. For the purpose of this discussion, sterilizing occurs first in the tasks of preparing and eating the meal instead of last and doesn't require additional water for clean up. It has drawbacks, like eating all the food even when it taste very bad (burned). Barry

Your system is good and appropriate, but has your crews tried sumping, because that method looses Zero water for cleaning? Our part of the country has been in a drought for several years and water can be hard to find in some areas. One gallon of water is pretty valuable. Barry

This is how I was trained and how we trained at least until 10 years ago. Sadly, it seems we have to tip-toe around the hierarchy to keep from offending each other anymore. We don't act like adults anymore because we don't have the maturity of adults, even in simple discussions like this. The SM reports to the CC because as was said, the buck has to stop somewhere. One of the suggestions we gave to all the units in our District is for the CC to attend SM Specific training so that they would have some understanding of the responsibilities they are responsible for filling. In my opinion. I also believe the CC is the most important person of the unit to attend Wood Badge because they need to understand the Vision and goals of the unit, as well as how to build a productive successful team. Which is the main objective of Wood Badge. How does the CC support the SM is they don't know objective of the program? I have found that most packs actually do function more under the CC being responsibile for the program by building a successful team including the CM who more or less does report to the CC. Troops don't do so well because the SM is seen as unit leader over everything. So they tend to be treated that way unless the SM is humble enough to respect the CC's responsibilties. Of course as others keep saying, the best units are the ones where the two leaders work closely together. Most of the time you find that adults in units where the two work well together are typically very unselfish. That is actually rare because volunteer organizations generally attract adults looking seeking attention and making a name for themselves. Barry

Nothing you said changes my point of taking care of the team and the members of your team. You write a lot of words excusing personal responsibilities, but it's as simple as the life motto of, "Do unto others as you would have them do to you." Barry

I don't see any of your sources conflicting with another. Some just get into more detail. However, maybe I'm wrong but I took this thread as a discussion of gray area between different adult leader positions, not a conflict with the Scoutmaster's (or Cub Master's) responsibilities. So in that light, what do the docs say about the Committee Chair and committee members? Isn't that really the gray area that Blw is suggesting? Barry

Come on Stosh, your troop has four scouts with you and your wife as the leaders, it's not typical. And it's not about whether or not adults were trained, it is about doing the right thing for group, which includes future replacement leaders. Trained or not, advising adults to not take responsibility for continuing a healthy unit is self-serving and a contradiction to servant leadership. It's just selfish. Also, training replacement leaders used to be part of training syllabuses, I'm assuming it still is. So we don't know if the trainers or the unit leaders failed. But the point is the same, take responsibility for present and future health of the unit. It's just the right thing to do. Barry

And here is what you said earlier:"Absolutely no difference. Now if Council/District would teach their adults appropriate leadership we wouldn't be having this discussion."" You basically said "It's not my problem". It has to start somewhere stosh, how about at home instead of waiting for someone else to tell us what to do. Barry