ParkMan

I largely agree with this. As a district volunteer who has dabbled in membership from time to time, I would articulate that there are a few components to a membership campaign: Individual unit recruiting - this is where I agree with you 200%. The successful units I know are the ones who actively work on growing membership. Why? Because more membership brings more volunteers and energy. Individual unit membership is where is all starts. District/Council can encourage and train here, but that cannot force this. Quality unit programs - The most successful units I know are the ones who have strong, quality programs. They recruit in part through reputation. Scouts & parents talk to their friends about what a fantastic time their kid is having in Scouting. District/Council can assist in developing leaders, assisting in resolving unit issues, and augmenting programming. This requires a capable unit service program, a training program, and good programming to augment unit programs. New Unit development - Population growth, natural unit demise, etc. results in the need for new units to start. This can be left to happen organically. District/Council can proactively champion this effort and will likely see better results. This requires technical skill and knowledge in how to effectively start new units. Market development - Someone needs to raise the visibility and interest in Scouting overall. District/Councils could help here with local advertising, publicity, and co-ordinating "join Scouting" local event. National has a big opportunity to influence through national advertising. Is district/council needed? One could argue successfully that district/council is not really needed here. I think the core of this argument is that strong units will take care of their own recruiting and develop their own quality programs. Further, strong local programs will then result good word of mouth that results in more units. In that model, national can play a big role through good marketing. One could alternatively argue successfully that district/council plays a key role in this. To me the this question is a good one to debate, pick an approach, and then determine a solid strategy around. The problem in my mind is that strategies where district/council is actively involved requires real, active engagement and are bandwidth intensive. Most districts and councils don't have the ability for a bandwidth intensive membership effort like this and so whatever does happen is "best effort" and haphazard. There are probably very few councils nationally that do this well. Unless nationally we give up on active council/district participation like this, I would like to see technical knowledge from national about how to really do this. Not some webinars, or a UoS training, or the occasional council conference call on membership, but real engagement designed to deliver results. Perhaps this could even be done in a staged 5 year plan. i.e., if you are just starting out, here is what you can do. if you have a team today, here's what you can do. That kind of thing.

@Cburkhardt - best of luck with your professional activities. I've really enjoyed the insight, thoughtfulness, and thought provoking nature of your comments and topics. I wish you all the best on the trail until you are able to join us again.

I've been looking a lot at the councils in our area and it's unclear to me that consolidation would bring much benefit. I fear that the primary issue we face at the council level in Scouting today is a lack of technical knowledge on how to effectively grow Scouting. How does a council put together a membership program? How does a district put together a membership program? How does strong program impact membership? How does the fee structure impact program & membership? How does unit service impact membership? How does one effectively strengthen units in a volunteer organization? To me, these are the kinds of questions that need to be considered when assessing council health. It's unclear to me that national knows how to measure and grade those. It's unclear that national knows how to weigh the merger prospects of two councils. The optimistic in me thinks that national does understand these concepts and that council mergers will result in stronger councils. The pessimist in me thinks that national will simply look at the same sets of criteria that it has for 25 years that are simply not working. What fundamentally has changed through bankruptcy that allows it to correctly assess the viability and long term prospects of two councils?

As I hope you know, I'm sorry to hear how poorly it is run and how frustrating it is for you. Perhaps your council that might be encouraged to find new executive leadership in the coming year.

I think you're right that this is a council to council decision. In ours, there is no minimum price. Membership is by your ability to have an impact. @Eagle94-A1 - I think you must be a member in a really poorly run council. District Executives that are running around unchecked, District Committees with no power or leadership, a council board which is all about how much money you donate. I suspect there is a pattern emerging in your council's governance. Fortunately, this is not a universal truth across Scouting.

It strikes me that what you are building is more of a wikihow kind of site than a search engine like google. A Scout wants to work on a badge, you'll have all the resources there and put together to enable the Scout to go through the process. I see this as essentially just a modern interpretation of the Scout handbook and merit badge guides. If someone in their 20's or 30's sat down from scratch to build Scouting, it is unlikely that they would write a 100+ merit badge guides. Instead, they'd put them all online and have videos and more interactive content. It just happened to be that when they invented Scouting, a small book make the most sense. Today it doesn't. That's not to say there isn't value in those resources - there is. But, it's not the most obvious format for those materials today in 2020. Just like a merit badge pamphlet could replace a counselor, so too could this. But, it really doesn't have to. The counselor needs to provide more value to the Scout than being just a teller of facts.

Let me clarify what I meant. The the BSA is technically a charitable organization (a charity). If one looks at the programs of the BSA, there are indeed attempts to provide Scouting to kids from families with limited incomes. I know that in our council (which does charge fees), there are indeed programs to waive the fees for those that cannot afford them. There are lots of charities out there that are targeted primarily at helping people with limited means. Habitat for Humanity for example builds homes for people who cannot afford to buy one. Scouting is just focused on working with kids regardless of income. It's a subtle difference, but one that means that it is not always going to be inexpensive. My point on the fees is that the BSA could decide to focus on kids with limited means. If they did, they'd need a different fee structure. You cannot expect a family with little money struggling to make ends meet to start spending 40 or 50 dollars a month on Scouting. As the BSA keep piling on fees they need to be cognisant of that. I wish the BSA was more proactive in that regard, but they struggle to go beyond saying - "we have scholarships." Again, I simply don't think the BSA professionals understand a path to grow Scouting in economically challenged areas. I'm sure there are many that would like to - I just don't think they know how.

NCAC: Compensation of Leaders (FYE 12/2018) Compensation % of Expenses Paid to Title $690,326 6.16% Les Baron CEO

As mentioned in another post - people who are not on the Executive Board tend to have that perception. But, in reality, I've seen that many Executive Board members are there through dedication to the organization. In that time, they build networks within the council board that eventually leads to senior council board positions. Some do this through the ability to generate donations for the council, others through being able to deliver results and have impact within the council. I like to remember that whatever the group you're in, the people there need to like each other and be able to work together to accomplish something. It's true of a troop, it's true of a council board.

Respectfully, but that's not true at all in our council. There's a bunch of folks on our board who do donor stuff. They tend to be wealthy business types - but that largely is because they are the ones comfortable and capable of developing big donations. There are a bunch of folks on our board who do program stuff. They tend to be volunteers who worked their way up. The VP of program types or prior District Chairs. Most of these folks are accomplished enough, but they are not wealthy. The didn't get these roles because of money, but because they could go into a room of Scouters and get them organized and deliver results. Council boards need more of these people - but they are rare and usually are not interested in that level of involvement.

Can a council really declare bankruptcy so that they can pay into the settlement? I'm trying to imagine how that works. If a council doesn't have enough lawsuits to make them declare bankruptcy today can they voluntarily enter into a settlement that they cannot afford and then simply go bankrupt? I'm guessing that they'd be more likely to dissolve the corporation and sell of assets and then allow another council to either purchase their assets or a new council to form.

I would have to imagine an appeals court would overrule it anyways if they did. I'm no legal scholar, but I cannot fathom a legal argument that bankruptcy reorganization could force the dissolution of the BSA if it is specifically codified as perpeptual. You might liquidate all the BSA assets that are not otherwise protected by law, but somehow I think the BSA would still then own all the IP.

Let me rephrase my point, competently run councils should learn. Dwindling family FoS contributions are too easy to blame on a variety of factors - the DE didn't try hard enough, the district doesn't have enough volunteers, the unit leader isn't supporting the effort, etc. Not contributing is something of a passive response. Families and units revolting to fees is another. If a family says - no, I will not pay, then that is harder to ignore. A family saying, we are leaving because you are charging too much is harder to ignore. I've no idea if councils will really listen- but they should be if they are paying attention.

Despite what many here will tell you, volunteers do have tremendous sway that the council level. Many of these issues that we talk about here often result from people in council positions that simply just don't have the awareness to make the best choices. I'm a bit of an optimist, but I generally find that people are trying to make the right decisions. The challenge is that there are relatively few Scouters who progress from unit leader to the council level. Because of that, boards are often a mixture of friends of board members (folks who travel in the board circuit) and a few long time dedicated volunteers. I think Scouting would be a lot better off if more unit leaders got involved at the district and then the council level. Not so much because they'd blow up the council - but more so because they would be engaged in small decision after small decision and we'd see many more small decisions made with the unit leader or parent mindset in consideration. As these small decisions start to accumulate, we'd see a culture shift in thinking at the council level.

I can't completely blame the executives. Even in our troop it's more fun to go on high adventure trips and have lots of great gear. Keeping the program economical is a choice - but there are certainly costs of that choice. I've watched how units (and council) have scrimped to save a few dollars on fees. Then I'll get done, hop in the car, and grab lunch with my son for $20. It takes a choice by people to know the potential of what could be, yet to continually work to do it in the most economical fashion. I can see that there are many who say - "why do we work so hard to save money?" I think it's easy to assume it's all about the money - but I think it's a lot more complicated than that. Many who get involved in Scouting do so to have a great Scouting experience - not run a charity. Again, I think we just need to reconcile that as a movement. Are we a charity or are we not?

Fully agree. In a weird way, I believe that council fees will be good for councils. Those fee will force councils to have more accountability to their Scouts and families. You won't be able to lose the MBC applications 3 or 4 times because people won't accept it. However, there are three primary hurdles to this: The challenge for councils though can be summed up in - "that they don't know what they don't know". Most are small organizations of 15-30 professionals. They have people who have lived most of their careers in the BSA system. That registrar who is used piles of paper on his desk doesn't really understand what needs to happen to take this all online. They are often inefficient because they do not know another way. They can certainly be retrained, but barring real leadership it will be difficult Most councils are trying to stem holes in their budget with these new fees. Yet, the kind of service we are talking about requires them to devote a portion of those fees to that effort. If a council has 10,000 scouts and they charge $48 a year, that is about $480,000 dollars. That's a lot of money - but it's not transformative money. A council in the 10,000 scout range probably has a budget in the range of $3,000,000-4,000,000. So to completely revamp how the organization works for 15% of your budget will be a cultural challenge. Because councils have been largely thought of as charities for so long, they funding side (fundraising) is disconnected from the spending side (program). It is a huge culture shift to now need to tie funding to the quality of how resources are spent. Until these new fees, a council could largely put up a picture of how great Scouting is an get a donor to write a check. Now, with fees becoming a bigger part it's a very different conversation to the moms and dads who have to pay the dues.

@Cburkhardt - agreed. In fact, I would favor a higher council fee to a higher national fee. For example, I would not begrudge $60 a year to council, $20 a year to national. That strikes me as an appropriate ratio. Further, I have no issues with local units having varying degrees of fees. A troop in a more affluent community certainly charge more and in return provide a different kind of experience than a troop in a lower income community. As has been pointed out, the problem with the various fees is that it is difficult to communicate the value one gets for those fees. We sort of understand a national fee. Someone has to write the manuals and pay for the insurance. Today it just seems that the fee is too high for those items Council fees are often difficult to communicate to families. Yes, the council provides a camp - but usually a Scout pays for Summer camp and other council events. Why does a family pay an annual fee if there is going to be yet another charge per event? The district is almost entirely staffed by volunteers. It's unclear how that money helps them. The council provide a paid staff, but the value of that staff is lost on my Scouts and families. Most Scouts will see a DE in passing maybe once or twice a year. Why an idividual scout needs to contibute $15 or $20 to have a DE is not clear. The core issue I see with council fees is that they were designed to provide a more steady income stream than FoS. Yet, an FoS donation is very different than an annual fee. Parents who are motivated will say - sure, I'll provide you some money so that the council can operate. But, requiring a family to do the same is very different. In my humble opinion, the councils need to shift the focus on fees such that they provide for clear, demonstrable value such as the removal of all program fees at the council level. and district.

To me, "this" is issue. The BSA doesn't really know what it is. Is it a frugal activity for low income kids? Is it a high cost activity for well off kids? Is it both, is it neither? I've got no idea and I doubt anyone else does either. But, we all have an opinion on what it should be. If the BSA really wanted to market to lower income families, it easily could. But, we would actually need to try. We'd also need to stop doing things like spending money in ways that results in $66 to national and $48 to council. If the BSA doesn't want to worry about low income families, then just admit that and let's charge $250 a year per kid and move on. But, the BSA needs to have a better fee strategy than it does right now.

That's my problem nationally too. As far as I can tell, I write a check for $66 per scout so that someone will update the various manuals, so that there is insurance should something bad happen, and some amount of money for a national marketing team. I can't fathom that this is a $66 per scout cost.

We're talking different things here. I started my comments in this thread saying that national needs to reduce fees. I believe that $15-$20 a month for dues is too much - but mostly because there are many people we try to bring into the program who don't have the disposable income that others do. But, I think we have to be careful to not say it simply too expensive because in 2020 in the US, $15-$20 a month is pretty cheap compared to much of what we spend money on. $15 to $20 a month is a bargain to some, to others a fortune. When we decry Scouting as simply too expense, we run the risk of loosing credibility because many people involved in the program do not believe it is. I make no light of the expense here. Scouting from the BSA is quickly becoming a middle class (if not upper middle class) activity.

Fascinating - thank you. It sure looks like the BSA has been taking on a lot of debt for some reason - the Summit I imagine. I'm not on to blame national for stuff - but I do think that national really ought to focus to get fees down and if these are in the way, national needs to restructure. Hopefully coming out of bankruptcy whatever remains will have a significantly reduced need for a large national fee. $66 a year to national, $48 to a council, and $100 to a unit is getting very expensive. $15 or $20 a month for dues isn't a lot of money to some, but it's a lot of money to ask when you are trying to grow membership.

Interesting analysis. What was the cause of the significant increase in liabilities?

Another example of the inefficiency of the BSA structure. $66 to pay for national $30 to pay for council I don't mind that we have to pay, but $66 to national seems like a lot now that we have to pay council fees too. Would be a good time for national to figure out how to get that to $20 a year per scout.

Sorry to hear you are not feeling well from the vaccination and missed the orientation. I am sure that they will be happy to fill you in on what you missed. Very exciting that it is less than 1 month to go.

We had this discussion in our troop too. What we realized is that there are really two primary styles of patrols - mixed age patrols and same age patrols. New Scout patrols are a logical extension of the same age patrol model. Youth are grouped together by age, the start in a troop as a group, and they journey through Scouts together. In many ways, it mirrors life for the youth. This model has a tendency to promote a tighter patrol bond as the youth are together for the long haul. They go through similar stages together, etc. The mixed age patrol model is predicated on the notion that you've got older Scouts and younger Scouts in the same patrol. This is good for having patrols who all have a similar level of capability. It can do an OK job of creating friendships - but likely not as strong as a same age patrols. New scout patrols are really only an issue who you try to use them with mixed age patrols. Even there they are not necessarily a problem. Scouts were not in the same patrol prior to joining the troop - so delaying that a year isn't the end of the world. The benefit of them too is that in a mixed age patrol setting, it can be difficult to do all the checklist items in the earlier ranks. Having some ability to work with those with other youth at the same age doing the same kind of things can be a positive. Where this all becomes an issue is when adults haven't thought all this through and are not thinking of this from an aims and methods perspective.