ParkMan

This is a good concrete recommendation. Yes - let's do some market research to determine why people drop out of the program or never join.

RIght - as @Eagledad just correctly noted that doesn't point to a contradiction. Adding girls to open up a new market doesn't mean that not having girls was the reason that fewer boys were joining. Who knows why fewer boys are joining - but we cannot simply assume it's because there are no girls. To borrow the phrase "correlation does not imply causation." One reason you see a lot of experienced Scouters push back on suggestions of blanket change is because Scouting's history is full of people who show up and make changes. In most cases those changes have not improved things. Some quick examples that come to mind are: the Improved Scouting Program of the 70's, Learning for Life, Varsity Scouting, Scouting Soccer, & STEM Scouts. These are all examples where someone said - "you need to change and here is that change." Yet, through all of that, the core program has continued to survive. As such, when people show up and say "you all need to change but offer no details", there is a lot of skepticism. This is why change agents need to offer specifics. What do you want to change, how will that change increase membership?

Thank you for the wonderful examples of Scouting working today. Our troop has similarly been quite successful. We're about 60 kids today. Covid dropped our numbers a bit, but not too much. We are a very active, youth led, outdoor troop. In any given month there are generally at least two outdoor activities of some form. Troop meeting attendance is generally good. Planning is driven by the youth and they determine what we do. I will share that a lesson that I learned from this troop is that activity level matters more than most anything else. Youth want to do things - they want to be active. If you have an active program, youth join. If you have a inactive program they get bored. As I look around our district, I see that again and again. Packs & troops that are active and energetic have members - those that are not, do not. If our district had 10 active troops like ours, we'd see a very different district.

This points to an important issue in making decisions about program changes. Most organizations have a core offering or service that they provide - for many years in the BSA it was a youth program for boys. In admitting girls, the BSA expanded their offering to an adjacent space - a youth program for girls. In that move, the BSA expanded the total available audience for it's offering. This results in the potential for more members. Yet, it probably has mad a limited (if any) impact on the membership numbers from the original offering. This is a very real business choice - do we try to gain additional market share in our core market or do we open up additional markets? In other words, it Scouting better served by increasing the number of members from those kids we serve or by trying to broaden the number of youth we can recruit from? Yet, I sense that your argument here is more about the offering and program itself. That somehow the core Scouting program is a relic of the past and not compelling for modern youth. Did I get that right? If so, what is it about the program that you think needs to change?

Where I struggle with these kind of discussions is the lack of specifics. I've got no idea whether we are talking about uniform colors, removing religion, getting rid of advancement, or turning Scouting into a badminton club. I found this helpful to understanding perspectives here: Yet, in a comment like this one: I get the very high level concept that yes, change is desired. But I have no idea what change is desired. It's impossible for me to think about what is being advocated for here because I simply do not know what change is wanted. If it's a badminton club you seek, just let me know and we can discuss it. Tongue in cheek aside - I would really welcome more specifics like those in the first passage I quoted.

In my experience this is a challenging question. It works differently in different units. Technically the chartered organization is responsible for deciding who is and who is not a leader in the program. So, many will say that the COR or IH can make that decision. There are many units that follow the believe that the Scoutmaster reports to the Troop Committee. As a result, the Troop Committee and perhaps even Troop Committee Chair could effectively dismiss a Scoutmaster. Within forums and discussion groups you'll see the occasional discussion about this one. But really, in my experience you never want to dismiss a Scoutmaster if you can at all avoid it. Regardless of who can technically do it, it creates a very dangerous political climate in many units. Units implode because of stuff like this. I've always been a fan of a friendly adult beverage between the key decision makers in the troop when there are issues. Having a discussion with the Scoutmaster about why he/she is doing what they are doing. Even if it's wrong, see if you can find a way to make it work for everyone. If something needs to change, find a way to change it by working with the Scoutmaster and other key leaders - not be getting rid of him/her.

My sense is that there are a few different things going on with respect to families. 1) The core challenges families face today are not all that different than they were 10, 20, 50, even 100 years ago. Having a good job, being able to provide for you family, raising your kids, etc. For youth, the struggles of increasing independence, a desire to build friend groups, and for many - the beginning of dating and working. These basic problems really are the same as they've always been. 2) The mechanics of family life are different though they share a common root. Today you have more two income families than you once did. There are more outside distractions on family life than there once were. There is a reduced influence of extended family networks than there once was. Youth are less independent in some ways, more independent in others. 3) The superficial parts of life are substantially different. TV, cell phones, internet, social media, etc. I think a big part of this discussion is a conflict between two mindsets: the feeling that because of the changes in the superficial parts of life that organizations like Scouting need to change. the feeling that because the core challenges are largely the same, that the fundamentals of Scouting are sound. This is where I believe Scouting needs to be very careful. I think you are spot on when you write: I would modify what you wrote slightly to say: Scouting can, and should, certainly adapt. Yet, in doing so, we need to be mindful of why what Scouting does works and we need to be smart about where we adjust the program. Sure, modernize the program and techniques, but be very careful that in doing so we don't loose the very essence of what is working. For example, in this topic on training, I believe that the BSA does need to adjust it's training program to recognize that Scouters today have an interest in the outdoors, but less specific backgrounds in it. We cannot, for example, assume that ever Scouter cuts their own firewood for their home fireplace. As such, Scouters come into the program was a decreased understanding of things like building fires. Does it mean that Scouters do not want to build fires - no, it does not. But it does mean that a new Scouter has to learn a skill that was considered commonplace 20-50-100 years ago. Similarly, with the patrol method. Youth today has a greater number of options for activities than they once did. That puts a strain on the patrol method. So, does that mean we should abandon the patrol method? I would submit, that no - it does not. Kids still need to learn leadership skills. Kids still need to learn to work in teams. Scouting provides a exemplary place within which to learn these skills. So, in the example of the patrol method, it becomes even more important for Scouting to utilize the patrol method.

How would you like to see Scouting address the unique problems of 2020?

15 minutes talks at roundtable was just an idea. The picture I keep seeing is roundtable becoming a place with very few announcements and most of the focus on tech talks. Let's discuss going outdoors and make it really interesting for participants. It strikes me that the world today is actually more outdoor focused than it once was. There is greater interest in physical fitness and more people seem to be out camping and hiking than years ago. You look at the rise of companies like REI that didn't seem to be around when I was a kid. There has to be a way to capture that spirit in the adult community. I'm pretty sure you won't capture that with a couple of beginner classes online. My sense is that you can build that in a district or council, but it will take effort. This sounds like a great sequence to me. I would be excited about this kind of progression.

Or maybe it's because those with some continuity in the program recognize that the BSA keeps adapting without an underlying plan or vision. As a result, the BSA keeps rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic without really dealing with the primary issues. Those issues become apparent when people see it happen a few times and recognize the pattern. History is full of failed organizations that adapted to the wrong trends. It's not simply adaptation that's important - it's making the right adaptations.

My apologies. I deleted my prior post in an attempt to not come across as combative. Didn't realize you were reading it at that time.

COMMENT REMOVED

Request respected and appreciated. We're all passionate about Scouting and this most certainly is a very difficult issue for all of us.

Which is why the BSA needs to not be focused on continually and endlessly fighting lawsuits. The BSA needs to be focused on adapting it's program to the needs of today's youth so that they can fulfill their charter: And when said corporation is endlessly fighting lawsuits from the events of 30 or 40 years ago is a little hard to do. Let the corporation focus on doing what Congress asked them to do.

This is what led me to say that perhaps it's time for Congress to say - enough on continual and perhaps even open ended extensions to the statute of limitations. Somewhere in there is a reasonable length for how long an entity should be liable. perhaps for a person liability extends to their whole lifetime perhaps for a for-profit corporation that liability is longer because of the gain in profits and the ability to assess stock holders perhaps for non-profits the statute of limitations is shorter because there is no ownership group.

I never claimed that. I simply said that at some point there should be a limit on how long we let lawsuits continue to linger. There comes a point in time where history is history.

Does raising costs penalize kids? Does closing camps penalize kids? I struggle with the logic of your argument. You have this notion that extract damages without their being an impact on the youth of today. How does one extract large settlements for each abuse victim without there being a negative impact on the kids today? I don't know the specifics of the lawsuits that you reference here. I looked, but have not found them yet. Give me some data and I'm sure I can provide an answer. Let's recall that my proposal was not blanket immunity, but instead a cap on the length of the statute of limitations: I am not, and have not, suggested blanket immunity for federally chartered organizations. But at some point I do believe there is a point upon which the federal government says enough. Maybe it's not 10 years, but 20 or 25. But at some point, the original leadership is gone. The abusers are gone. The volunteers have all changed. The professionals have all changed. There are no stock holders and so you can't assess them. All you can do is charge a completely different group of people a bunch of money because someone else 20, 30, or 40 years ago did something reprehensible. It's a lovely notion to say that "the BSA should be held responsible", but doing that has a cost. It's entirely a matter of public policy for us to ask "do we want, as a nation and a people, want to incur the cost of endless litigation for our nationally charter non-profits?". You want to hold there organizations responsible forever it seems. That it's OK because insurance companies will pay or that kids really won't feel the impact of it. Is that correct?

And you make that claim how? The kids of today are already paying higher fees. You've already stated that the BSA will pay more going forward. Who precisely do you expect to pay the BSA's portion? Upon what basis?

So you do expect the BSA will pay. The choice below doesn't say anything about how much. So we're back to the same choice: deny abuse victims compensation for those reprehensible things that BSA leadership overlooked or failed to follow-up on? penalize the kids of the United States today because some volunteers many years ago did reprehensible things and some professionals many years ago did equally reprehensible things by not preventing that from happening? So you're in favor of providing abuse victims compensation and penalizing the kids of today because you believe that the penalty won't be too bad. Is that correct?

That is precisely how people duck the real question. The lawsuits are OK because victims get lots of money, the insurance companies will pay it all, and the kids in the program won't be hurt. People have been saying that for 20 years now and as a result today we are looking at a bankruptcy hearing. Do you really see it happening that the BSA will pay nothing, the insurance companies will pay it all, and victims will get lots of money?

This whole topic is about the bankruptcy of the Boy Scouts of America. What high adventure bases will be sold, which councils will go bankrupt, which local camps will close, and now which chartered organizations will pay. We've already seen the impact of insurance companies paying in the form of higher insurance premiums to kids. There is no scenario under which the BSA does not pay money. With that in mind, just what is the third option that does not result in the choice: deny abuse victims compensation for those reprehensible things that BSA leadership overlooked or failed to follow-up on? penalize the kids of the United States today because some volunteers many years ago did reprehensible things and some professionals many years ago did equally reprehensible things by not preventing that from happening? Please articulate a third option that does not mean we choose between these two.

And this is the problem with our country today - let's punt on the real choice because someone else will make it OK. But, even if the insurance companies pay, all it does is lower the amounts we're talking about. The BSA will still have to pay which will mean higher fees for kids, camps sold which means fewer camps for kids, a diminished reputation which means fewer kids participate in the program. The will be a material impact on the kids of the United States. So that's not a real third choice. It just attenuates the impact. Kids are still penalized. You've not convinced me that this is a real third option. As far as I can tell, you are still telling me the choices are: deny abuse victims compensation for those reprehensible things that BSA leadership overlooked or failed to follow-up on? penalize the kids of the United States today because some volunteers many years ago did reprehensible things and some professionals many years ago did equally reprehensible things by not preventing that from happening? So which one do you want?

I merely prefaced the text with some action words based on your context. Ok, let's go back to the original text: deny abuse victims compensation for those reprehensible things that BSA leadership overlooked or failed to follow-up on? penalize the kids of the United States today because some volunteers many years ago did reprehensible things and some professionals many years ago did equally reprehensible things by not preventing that from happening? Which path do you think is the correct one? If there is a third one, what is it? Congress created the corporation. Congress can amend the enabling language to do whatever it needs to.

I've lobbied for a long time for Congress to appoint an inspector general to oversee the BSA. Congress should absolutely do it's job to ensure that the BSA is fulfilling it's charter. The slight distinction from what you describe that I would make is that the BSA should not be allowed to violate the charter. This is a corporation created for the purposes of the United States. If the BSA leadership is in place to fulfill the needs of the country. If the leadership violates it, said leadership should be replaced.

Nope - that may happen, but that's a side question. That's the "we'll stick it to the system concept and no-one is hurt." That's conflating the issue by suggesting that someone else is harmed that is not victims or kids of today. Really this comes down to the hard question: let abuse victims sue in perpetuity so that we do not deny abuse victims compensation for those reprehensible things that BSA leadership overlooked or failed to follow-up on limit the timeframe of suits so that we do not penalize the kids of the United States today because some volunteers many years ago did reprehensible things and some professionals many years ago did equally reprehensible things by not preventing that from happening What's your choice?