ParkMan

Grouping the US & UK programs by general age category: BSA: 5.5-10.5: 1,252,311 (3,844 per 1M people) 10.5-17: 959,628 (2946 per 1M people) Scouts UK: 5.5-10.5: 286,218 (4360 per 1M people) 10.5-17: 170,875 (2603 per 1M people) It looks like the US & UK programs are similar in size per captia. The UK is a little larger at younger end, the US a little larger at the older end. However, since there are quite a few duplicate registrations in the Boy Scout/Venturing programs, I'm not sure the US is really any larger. Surely, we'll see the US numbers drop below this once the LDS change happens. Does seem like the UK program is a very good one to look to for guidance on moving forward.

As an aside - interesting how much smaller the number of scouts is in Canada. I know Canada has a population about 11% of the US - but even accounting for that, the US numbers are still significantly larger. From the BSA 2016 annual report: Cubs: 1,262,311 Scouts: 822,999 Venturers: 136,629

Interesting stats. Thanks a lot for sharing them. In addition to their only being 23, I have to imagine that it wasn't quite the big deal back then. It was still a pretty new program gaining traction.

I don't get the new direction on these shirts. Are those some kind of big zippered pockets on the front? Who would actually use these? Instead of adding the embellishments, the need to just do some tailoring on the current shirts and call it a day.

I'm the first to agree that the unit level volunteers are the group with the single greatest ability to drive membership & retention in their unit. I'm also a firm believer that it's up to us unit level volunteers to build our troop and make it successful. I also agree 100% that national cannot make any given troop do anything. Yes - unit level scouters need to control their own destiny and not blame national. I do think that National can do a lot to increase retention. In reality, National wears a few different hats: - central message leadership - program development - central marketing organization - leadership to and oversight of councils Some things that I think the national council to do to help: 1) more clearly define the program for 14-17 year old scouts. The Boy Scout program is well defined for 11-13 year olds. Make it easier for units to understand the key things they need to focus on to drive retention. 2) Create a nationwide campaign to really focus on this problem. The CSE should be repeating retention, retention, retention. Make this a key part of the national Scouting conversation. 3) National should pressure councils to develop programs focused on improving retention. Tie the professional's variable compensation to improving retention. Scout Executives who improve retention gen promoted. That kind of thing. I could keep going...

Could be. But I think many unit commissioners are generalists. Do they all really know how to solve the unit retention problem? Agreed. My basic premise here is if you want to solve a problem, you focus on solving the problem. The approach in the BSA to solving a problem usually seems to be a revamp of a training, an article in Scouting magazine, JTE, or some new rule. I think we need to be more proactive than that.

I'm sure you are one of the experts. By experts I mean real experts - someone with the experience, skills, and vision to help a unit improve it's retention. This is not simply someone from council or national that got blessed with a title. As for who they are generally - based on how things work today - that's unclear. The role description is someone knowledgeable in developing a unit plan and has experience in retaining a high percentage of the members in a scout unit. That person would then go out and be a resource to other units that do not. So, if you've got a troop of scouts, struggles with retention of older scouts, and wants to do improve retention, these experts would be out there to work with them. We might think of them as a consultant. Someone who gets engaged for a limited amount of time to help a unit improve. Once done, they step back - perhaps being on call in case questions arise.

I agree that it's on the local units to retain their older scouts. You describe nicely some of the considerations. I'd like to see national do some thing I've never seen before in Scouting - really focus on fixing this. For example - I'd like to see training on 14-17 program development and on retention. I'd like to see true experts emerge who work with the troops on annual calendar and meeting structure. And so on.

I don't make it a habit of quoting myself. But, I hit send on this earlier than I meant to and wanted to expand a bit. My point on retention is really just that as I look around my district, I see a drop off as boys get older. Folks use terms like FUMES to describe it as if it's just an accepted thing. However, there are other activities (such as sports) that I don't believe suffer the same problem. My working theory for a while has been that at the boy scout level, the retention problem has stemmed from: 1) There are a lot of bad troops out there. Sorry guys, but I look around my district and see it. We read it here too. Troops that camp only ever so often, have boring meetings, have more drama than program, etc. There was a time 40 years ago that you probably could put out a sign that said "Scouts wanted" and folks just showed up. But, now there is so much more competition that this no longer is a given. I split the blame equally here between national/council/and units. 2) The Boy Scout program is tailored to 11-13 year olds, not so much the 14-17 year olds. Yes, there are leadership opportunities are one gets older which retain some. But, for others - after you've camped at the same spot 3 times, it just tiring. A trip every two years to Philmont, the Summit, wherever isn't enough. I fault national here for not focusing the discussion on how to retain these scouts. I'd love to see national put concerted effort into fixing this. I think it's not just a change in advancement requirements, but a concerted focus on quality & program. Program materials, training, district level operations can all be improved. Instead, I feel like we're getting quick fix band-aids, but not real solutions.

I continue to believe though that the retention problem stems from crappy programming. It's made worse because the BSA doesn't really have a plan for the 14-17 year old crowd.

This "Family Scouting" thing really isn't what it's being made out to be. The "Scouts BSA" isn't a family camping club - it never has been, it never will be. That just makes no sense for the BSA to even try that. Any units that are doing that are just misusing the term.

Agreed - there surely will be mergers. Makes me think the BSA had too many eggs in one basket. Hopegully tbis will force them to try harder on recruiting and marketing.

This clearly was in the works before the vote. I wouldn't just assume that the move to add girls was a reaction to lost revenue. Instead, I really wonder if this is simply what happened when the BSA leadership found itself free of the pressure of the LDS church. I wonder if we'll see some other, progressive changes in the next few years without the LDS influence.

Yeah - have to imagine this was well known. While there will be a financial hit - this may actually be a blessing in disguise. The BSA will be less impacted by a single religious group going forward.

We'll see a couple of units go in our district, but nothing dramatic.

This is very similar to what we did. There was no ceremony for Webelos to AOL though. Sorry!

While I'm sure important votes happen - always figured it was like watching CSPAN.

We're starting to do this too. Right now it's the scouts when they join college - but it really could be anyone. My only hesitation is that it seems like a weird name.

Thanks guys! It's 35 registered volunteers - not 35 ASMs. It's actually 15 ASMs and 20 Committee Members. The reason we have this many is because we make a point to ask. The adults pay their BSA fee, so it is no financial harm to have more. I presume they register to be able to help out. On the committee side, we do a pretty good job of getting folks specific jobs - so that number isn't crazy. In fact, we have had folks change from ASM to MC because of their committee job.

Back from dinner. @scoutldr - it's not that we don't get involvement. We rarely have events canceled because of adults. What tends to happen though is that it's the SM and some parents. Maybe some of those parents are registered as ASMs maybe not. But, the list of really active, engaged ASMs is pretty small. The Scoutmaster likes to think of events by which adult is responsible for it. He constantly asks for more adults to '"step up". So it becomes a question of which adult is responsible for it. We have all kinds of events that don't happen because there isn't an adult willing to be responsible for it. I wouldn't say that the committee is trying to supervise the Scoutmaster. The Scoutmaster goes to the Committee and says "we don't have an adult to organize this trip". He then puts it on the committee to figure out who can help. If anything, it's that the Scoutmaster invites the Committee to get involved. Because we have a lot of registered adults, this kinda works. Committee members and some ASMs step up to serve as adult lead on the trips. But, just as often the SM ends up just doing it himself. I've never been terribly comfortable with this approach. It just feels like every time a new event comes up, we scrounge around to figure out who can organize it. That led me to thinking about - maybe I've got this all wrong. @qwazse - That's what we've done historically. Recruit ASMs from within the familes and get them registered. Get them connected with the SM so they can get going. But, as I mentioned earlier - we tend to get them signed up, but then not really give them a role. This has me thinking - maybe I'm just doing this wrong.

Thanks guys - I appreciate the pointers. @sst3rd - I fully agree. I'm a big fan of letting folks do their jobs and I've got no interest in being involved in programming. My dilemma is that we don't really seem to leverage the ASMs all that much. I think what happens is that they sign up, go on a few trips, but don't really have a role. Eventually, they get bored of just being around and stop engaging. ** ADDING SOME MORE TEXT - SAVED TOO SOON **

Thanks. A couple of followup questions. So you see the CC looking at the yearly calendar and then filling each of the trips with registered leaders? Or, do you see it as a more general thing where the CC simply recruits more adult and then they sort out amongst themselvs who is camping when? Im trying to figure out how involved the CC should be in figuring out who goes on what or organizes what. The SM do a good job - so they don't need the CC more involved in hs business than needs be. Looking for ideas on what's working for others.

I've got a bit of a dilemma and I was hoping to get some advice. I'm the Committee Chair of a Troop. Scoutmaster has been involved for 20 years. We've got a Troop of about 80 boys. We've got lots of registered adults - 35 last I checked. Half the adults are asms The thing I've never quite figured out is how a troop gets adult participation at events. Whether it's a camping trip, service project, or other event, we struggle to get adults to step forward who will help out or even attend. I understand that it's the boy's troop and that they should shoulder much of the leadership. They themselves are lackluster about most events. As the CC, I've encouraged the SM to get the boys more engaged. But, he's just not comfortable with it. He's got a view that we present opportunities - if the boys go, they go. If they don't, the don't. My dillema is that this is presenting two problems: 1) the quality of our outdoor program suffers. The SM doesn't really guide the SPL to get trips planned, so it often falls on the adults. Because we get lackluster participation - there are not a lot of adults with the skills and desire to do this. As a result, we have lots of small, last minute trips. 2) our bench is pretty shallow. We got the SM and a very active ASM. But past that, our adults are less engaged in the program parts of things. It is not unusual to have a trip get cancelled because neither the SM or ASM available. My question is - how do you get folks more active? Is it a culture thing? Is it a CC that is finding adults for every task? Is it a SM that builds a group of active helpers? Something different?

To me, this is the only real argument in favor of a boys only program. Would the scouting mission of developing youth be better accomplished by a separate program for boys (BSA) and a seperate one for girls (GSUSA). What BP thought 100 years about gender separation isn't really all that relevant. There are just too many other groups that started in that era with separate programs that are now unified. Its hard to accept the argument that BP was correct when others who did the same are were wrong.

Welcome to the forum @plumchas! Removing extra tasks from the den leaders is a great idea. They indeed have the hardest job in Cub Scouting. We had a Committee Chair who led the meetings. We had a treasurer and advancement chair. We didn't fill the other pack committee roles. What I think I found is that our committee meeting really was a pack leadership meeting - probably 50% pack committee and 50% Cubmaster/den leader meeting. We didn't really ask them to do a lot extra, but they were generally involved in all the decisions about what was going on.