ParkMan

For adults: 1. I find the current trainings too basic. That coupled with the lack of decent continuing education has resulted in too much "learning on the job" 2. The expectation to get trained is too weak in the BSA. This has resulted in generally poor training percentages. 3. With the advent of online training, face to face training is dwindling. District and council training teams are not prepared for how to leverage this to improve leader training.

I am always very flexible with things like this. I figure that our troop is essentially a big Scouting family and that eventually it will sort itself out. I'm always more concerned that there is some sort of family issue that they need some help with. But, If I eventually came to the conclusion that the family was taking advantage of us, I'd send them a quick email them that for liability reasons the BSA requires their youth to be a registered member of the pack or troop. I'd also tell them that we cannot process any awards for their scout until they were registered. Then I'd ask them to come in at the next meeting to get it taken care out. I think I had maybe one case in 10 years like this. What I did tend to have from time to time is were parents who were just not terribly organized. Remembering to do paperwork on time was a skill they didn't possess.

I'm trying to figure out what's going on in Venturing that we're seeing such big drops. We're down 41% this year and 36% last year? I'm gathering that nationally Venturing was kinda like Varsity - most of those involved are LDS. We've never seen strong Venturing participation in our district. Our Venturing number is something like 3% of our total Scouts. But, I also don't see that we lost 75% of the Venturers in our district in the last two years. If anything our Venturing problem has more to do with not having adults to champion Venturing programs than it does youth not interested.

Though I think the same principle could apply, at some point we're taking the comment about merit badge and fundraising a little far. I think it works in the patrol case because it's a similar scenario. A meetnig of Scouts with an adult outside the normal meeting structure. Could you have a den meeting with one adult where every parent attended? I suppose yes, but I don't think that's the original intent. An official Lion den meeting is dis-similar enough that I don't think I'd recommend applying it there. I would suggest the if you've got a Lion den with a bunch of parents, you probably ought to sign up two as assistant den leaders anyways. In this new paradigim, I think a den really needs three registered leaders just to consitently be able to get two there. Might as well start that in the Lion year.

I understand the point. I'm inferring that the Scout was blindsided during the voting or just before. If the Scout did know and didn't ask - then yes, the scout really should have asked. If the Scout didn't know, then I think it's a different case. Is it really fair to a Scout to be blindsided by a general decision like this? Doesn't that simply demoralize the scout? I ask the question not to criticize the Scoutmaster here. Instead, I'm much more interested in what coaching we provide to Scoutmasters who may find themselves with a similar decision. Wouldn't it generally be best to tell this kind of thing to Scouts well ahead of time?

I thought it was a great segment. I particularly enjoyed the anchor conversation at the end and thought it was exactly the message the BSA was hoping for.

We don't see that much burn out in our pack. We generally see about 85% of the Webelos join a troop. Similarly, we see lots of leaders make the transition too. For scouts, I think the key is to keep it challenging - not just fun. Every year has to involve new things and scouts need to get significant new challenges. You need to have differentiated activities just for the Webelos. For adults, the key is support. I've found that most of our burn out occurred when we overworked sole den leaders. So, we made sure we always had a den leader and assistants. We made sure we have an assistant Cubbmaster or two who could handle pack level tasks so the Cubmaster isn't worn too thin and so we don't put too much on the den leaders that isn't their jobs. Seems to work for us. This is where I think the UK has it right with Beaver Scouts and Cub Scout being seperate programs.

I read this differently. If it was a meeting of one scout with an ASM then I'd agree. Once you start to add in other scouts, I think you need a parent of each scout there. You could have: ASM, patrol leaders mom (registered in any position), 6 scouts ASM, 6 parents, 6 scouts I don't think you could have: the ASM, patrol leaders mom (currently unregisterd), and six scouts.

Hi @karunamom3, I'm really glad to hear your pack is at 18 active scouts - that's fantastic! I had a different impression before and am so very happy I was wrong. Amazing job!!! The pack and troop sizes I mentioned come from a simple formula - den and patrol sizes. Thet may seem like crazy numbers - but let me give a little context on how & why. When I was a Cubmaster (about 5 years ago), I learned that the best thing for us to focus on was Tiger recruiting and to strive for a full, new Tiger den every year. We did't just recruit Tigers, but it was our primary goal. We'd encourage scouts to invite their friends, sent out fliers, visited school open houses, had a join scouting afternoon at our CO, invited prospective scouts to a fun pack meeting, and put out yard signs around town. What that meant was 8 new Tiger scouts every year. With 8 Tigers it was a full, active, den and it wasn't too big to manage either. We found that there were always parents available in that size group to become the den leader and assistant den leader. It's a formula that's worked out really, really well. In addition to new Tigers, we'd also get enough other Scouts to fill in spots created by Scouts in other dens who decided not to continue. After a few years of this, we had full dens at every level. With a full den at every level, a pack would be 30-40 Cub Scouts. With a pack of full dens, we now had a very active pack. We had enough parents around to have an Assistant Cubmaster or two. We found that with minimal effort, one parent each year would join the pack committee. In our case, it's worked out well enough that we now focus on two new Tiger dens each year. We do this because we find that two dens at every level gives us some flexibilty in how we do programming. Our troop works much the same way. We focus on having enough crossover scouts each year for one or two patrols of new Scouts. A new patrol would be 6-8 new scouts. Over time that's 35-40 Scouts in the troop. We never set out to build a troop that size, it just happens over time - in fact we never talk about numbers in our troop recruiting. Troop recruiting is really not all that time consuming either. For us, it consists of: be active in the Cub Pack, invite the Webelos camping, and invite the webelos to visit one or two troop meetings. Basically, we just do what we do and find opportunities to invovle the Cub Scouts along the way. So, my projected pack & troop sizes are simply a multiplier of den & patrol sizes. One new crossover patrol each year - 25-30 scouts. Two new crossover patrols - 50-60 scounts. We are currently focusing on two new crossover patrols each year. I think we are at about 80 scouts in the troop today. If you stick with the troop, I'd encourage you to think about taking on the CC role. If the COR & current CC are taking a leave of absence, it provides a great opportunity. This will give you a clear position of responsibility from which to quarterback much of what happens. Annual calendar - totally appropriate for a CC to push for that. Decision on summer camp - the same. Theoretically, the Scoutmaster just works with the SPL and the Scouts. In an ideal world, the SM is driving decisions like these, but if your current SM is not, then the CC is in a good position to fill in the gaps. While you're faced with a weak SM, the troop committee can really provide the leadership to make sure that things get moving. For example - the activities chair is supposed to help with transportation, activity signups, camp reservations, and recruit additional adults to attend. So, ask the SPL for the list of where they want to go for the next 6 months and have the activities chair get to work. In our troop the scouts handle much of that, but while you're rebuilding let the scouts focus more on organizing themselves and making decisons. The adults can do the infrastucture stuff (like reservations and transportation) in a way that completly lets the Scouts be in charge, but leverages the adults to get things moving. Similarly - adults can make a huge impact on recruiting. Have a small group of parents figure out a recruiting schedule. Dates for the pack Pinewood Derby, Blue & Gold. Figure out some troop camping trips to invite Webelos to attend. Figure out when to have Webelos visit the troop. Again, let the Scouts make as many of the decisions and do as much of the work as possible. Adults are great at knowing what decisions need to be made, bringing them to the Scouts through the SPL, and then taking care of the follow-up during a rebuilding time.

I hadn't heard that. That makes no sense. The BSA would be so much better off just focusing on building quality unit programs.

Hi @karunamom3, Sounds to me like you've got a Scouting program at your CO on life support. Ouch! I think you've got two different choices to make: what do you do for you sons? what do you do for Scouting at your CO? You want your sons to have the absolutely best Scouting experience possible. I wouldn't let personal pressures about supporting the current Scouting program get in the way of that. If your sons get into a dull, boring program and they quit after 2 years that would only hurt them. As for your CO's program, I think that @Treflienne asks a key question. Beyond that, your pack & troop need to grow. One of the basic rules I've always seen in Scouting is: Great program leads to youth membership. Youth membership leads to adult volunteers. Adult volunteers help build great program. It's a cycle. If you've got a pack and troop holding on for dear life being run by a couple of overwhelmed people, it's going to be really hard to build a great program. Without great program it's going to be hard to recruit new members. Without new members you're going to struggle for adults to relieve the overwhelmed adults. To do that, my recommendations are: Get your parents and supporters together. Get them all engaged. Put half to work strengthening the program. Put half to work growing membership. See if there are any former Scouters who could be enlisited for a two year commitment as you rebuild. My experience is that you need to get to about 25-30 scouts and 8-10 volunteers to have a really sustainiable program. I would set that as my goal. In your case, you need to build both a pack and a troop, so it's 25-30 scouts in the pack and 25-30 scouts in the troop. Two simple recommendations I've also seen work well are: Get all the leaders to sit down and write out an annual calendar. Stick to that calendar. Don't reschedule things (short of weather) and don't cancel things. Have a monthly adult leaders meeting. Make it important that everyone attends. This is very acheviable. Packs and Troops start every day with fewer resources than you have now.

The BSA leadership really needs to separate out the LDS numbers. While it seems like Scouting is declining rapidly, I suspect much of that is around the LDS decision. Would be better to be more transparent here. Our district had steady membership the past two years.

I'm all for Scoutmaster discretion on this. But, isn't the original issue here more about the Scoutmaster correctly setting expectations? It's not that the scout didn't get in. It's that the scout didn't even know he wouldn't even be on the ballot because of his age. Since the troop meets weekly there seems like lots of opportunities for a 30 second announcement that Scouts had to be at least 13 or 6th grade or whatever.

I agree with your sentiment. Mkaking the outdoor program a bigger percentage would be .a good thing. I'd welcome another 200-400 outdoor outdoor oriented points. Overall in program there is 900 points now. While I get what you're saying - the BSA can distinguish itself by increasing emphasis on the outdoor program. I'd suggest that we add them and then raise the minimum needed to get Gold by most of that amount. It may be worth noting that having a budget only gets you 50 points. In the "planning and budget" category, to get more points you also have to add on: the scouts conduct an annual planning conference (another 50 points) the troop committee meets 6 or more times a year to review plans & budget (another 100 points) In the short term camping category 9 or more short terms campouts gets you 200 points. 4 campouts only gets you 50 points. SInce program quality is the most important thing we do, having some additional outdoor program goals to guide troops would be a good thing. I agree with the sentiment that we don't want non-program things to hide the fact that outdoor program is really, really important. However, most of the rest of the criteria make sense and certainly help to have a well run troop. Other categories are: recruiting, retention, Webelos crossovers, advancement, service projects, patrol method, family engagement, and leader training.

I stand corrected. My apologies. Didn't intend to misquote.

I fully agree that boys & girls are different. I have two daughters and a son - I've seen that myself. Somehow we think that the kinds of activities we do in Scouts BSA are particularly suited to boys. I just don't see that in my experience. Take for example the eight methods - which of those do you think a girl wouldn't enjoy as much as a boy? What I would suggest is that when many of us were kids, girls were not exposed to many of those same activities. As such, by the time they hit middle school they felt uncomfortable in them and so didn't want to participate. From what I've seen the distinction today is often more "how" than "what". Girls like many of the same kinds of things as boys - but they may approach it differently. That's what I expect we'll see in our girl troops as they grow in our district. They'll do many (and perhaps all) of the same things, but they will take a fresh look at how they do some of them. By fresh look I don't mean changing requirements - but approaches on things like organziation, problem solving, or how they interact wiht each other to accomplish them,

Respectfully, I think this changed with Title IX (requiring equal access to sports for both genders). My daugher and her friends are much more liekly to be outdoor oriented than girls of my generation. I tihnk a lot of that comes from the fact that for their whole lives we've been exposing girls to the same sets of activities as boys. Beyond that, the advancement system in Scouts BSA seems to be a great fit with modern girls. My high school daughter's favorite class is engineering. She gets bored that her GSUSA troop doesn't work on badges anymore.

Both of my daughters are girl scouts. Their programs seem to max out around the end of elementary school. What I generally see in Girl Scouts is either: 1) a multi-level troop for all ages. 1st graders through high school. High schoolers are non-existent. 2) a single age troop where the leaders are consistent from the beginning. Some make the elementary to high school transition fine, but others seem to die off. I suspect it's because some leaders who were great in 4th grade are not great with sophmores in high school. I tihnk this is the genius of the BSA system. You hit Scouts BSA and everything is new again. SImilarly, many of the leaders are different. Those leaders who were great at the Bear level may or may not decide that being a Scoutmaster is for them. Similarly we have great Scoutmasters who would be awful wolf den leaders. So I'm not so sure that the GSUSA pros are right so much as they are beholden to their system and making the best of it. BTW - my daughter's GSUSA troos is like my #1 above. So much so that I'm considering planting the idea of also joining a Scouts BSA troop soon.

Maybe the answer is more differentiation in Webelos. Cub Scouts is Lions, Tigers, Wolves, Bears - activites as we know them now Webelos is two years - seperate from Cub Scouts - more adventure, more responsibility Scouts is the program we know today

I'm not aware of the official process. I've had two cases where we dealt wiht the council staff on issues like this. In one case it was never suggested that abuse occured and the SE asked the district executive to get involved and understand the details. In that case, it resulted in the DE giving guidance to me (as Committee Chair) on how we should address the situation. In the other case the SE talked to the relevant units adults to gather information. Based on that information he consulted with national and a course of action was decided upon. I suspect that each case is handled on a case by case basis and the SE makes a determination on how to proceed - probably in conjunction with counterparts in the National office.

I think what you're hitting on here is an inherent conflict in the BSA structure. 1) Units are owned and managed by the CO. The BSA simply provides the structure of the program and enters into an agreement with the CO such that they will use it along certain guidelines. 2) The BSA's own communications clearly show their intent that the programming of the BSA is as described in the DRP language. Theoretically what would happen here is that the CO would have the first say - it's their unit and program. They could preach and teach all they want. At some point, they BSA may say - we think that this CO is violating the spirit of the program that they agreed to utilize. As such I'm sure there would be emails and phone calls galore. If nothing changed and the CO still proceeded, the BSA could terminate the agreement. But, short of the BSA terminating the agreement - they have no real operational role here. Again, it's the CO's unit. I think this is a pretty extreme example of what could happen because of the CO concept in the BSA. In reality, I can't imagine this happening in quite this way.

There is a lot of sense to this. One of the keys to a really strong pack or troop is a really strong infrastructure supporting the program. I see this all the time. Our pack has changed scouts and leaders two or three times over the past decade. Because there is a strong organization behind them, they weather these changes just fine. Strong organizations provide the ability for Scoutmasters to focus on the scouts. I had a conversation with a Scoutmaster last week who runs a great program, but has a smaller troop because the pack at the CO is small and doesn't have many Scouts who get through the program. If the overall Scouting program at that CO was stronger, he'd have a much larger and more successful troop. If I look around our city, I see this played out time and time again. Can you do this without an engaged CO - sure. But, to do it you account for that by building a similar group around the units. Further, it's good for the Scouts to belong to a troop with a strong organization and infrastructure. I've been fortunate to be part of such a troop. We have 30+ active adults who support the Scoutmaster. Becuase he has strong support he can focus on what to do, but not get hung up on the logistics to make it happen. We can focus on all eight methods (see other topic) without having to prioritize one over the other. Beyond that, most COs have a strong history and culture that can benefit the Scouts and pack/troop too. Sure, maybe you don't share their religious beliefs, but most COs have a community and culture in their membership that can really help the unit suceed. Having a CO that is engaged in the unit goes a long way to making that all work. The whole idea of a CO is to provide for that kind of continuity and permanance. When you turn the CO into just a landlord, you start to diminish the benefits of having a strong CO in the first place. So, it's in the best interest to the unit to foster that relationship. Can you do this without a CO - sure. But, the reality is that it's hard and few units would succeed. So - I'd suggest that we're better off as packs and troops trying to make it successful.

i think you're observation would be a very common one. Again - the BSA system is pretty clear here. The Chartered Organization runs the Scout program for it's units. It's precisely why the LDS church could use the Scouting program as their youth program. If they wanted to proselytize, they could. Very few, if any, units would really try to use the Scouting program to convert kids to their faith. it would take about one meeting for word to get out and everyone who disagreed to leave. But again, technically, the unit could do that if they wanted to. I don't think using the Scouting program to convert people is a winning strategy for a unit. But I do think it's unfortunate that many COs/units have an arm length's relationship. When Scouting units are more integrated into the CO, the CO takes a bigger interest in the Scouting unit. Our pack have about 70 Cub Scouts. We might have 5 from the CO. Yet, the CO has a lot of kids. It really seems like there could be a much stronger bond there.

I think we may be making different points then. When I hear subset I think of a part of or a division of the CO. When I hear subsidiary I think of a seperate organization that is controlled by the CO. I would think the topic of Scouting unit members (whether Scouts or Scouters) being considered members of the CO itself is probably a technical question more about the membership policies of the CO. If we wanted to go with a more generic definition of member "as someone who is participant in a programing of the CO" then yes, I would say that being a member of the Scouting unit makes you a member of the CO. However, now I'm getting pretty speciifc of how one defines membeship. My real point is simply that the scout unit is designed to be part of the programming of the CO. The Scouting unit is not intended to be a seperate organization that simply is owned by CO. I made that point because I find that it is beneficial to the pack or troop to actively seek opportunities to participate in the life of the CO itself.

My church has a program for the homeless - I attend a large urban church downtown in our community. To come and participate in that homeless outreach program you don't have to be a member of the church. To volunteer, you don't have to be a member of the church. You just come help. Yet, no one would suggest that this homeless outreach program isn't a part of the church's program. I think we're too hung up on the question of CO membership here. I grew up in a different faith, but my wife & I decided to celebrate religion together and so we attended the church of her faith. I participated for a decade without being a member. Our pack & troop are similar. We regularly do things at/for/with our CO (also Presbyterian church). Set up for events, help with their service projects, make improvements to the grounds, etc.