Ojoman

This is where training comes into play. If you lay out how to do a quality program so they already have a track to run on then it is more likely to happen. Train the unit commissioners to sit in on the pack committee meeting and train them. Perhaps bring a member of the cub leader training committee to assist. I complemented the leadership of one pack I worked with on their program and membership growth and they responded with, we just did what you told us to do! Without direction their program might never have grown. The CM and his wife (mostly the wife) ran two council pow wows a year or two later and they were great. Share the vision, show the way!

Frankly, when I was CC for a pack, we created a program that met the needs/wants/expectations of the kids and parents and virtually had ZERO dropout (except for those that moved away). We grew from a half dozen families to well over 50 and had multiple Webelos Dens that crossed over with their leaders to rebuild the troop. Dens had their own field trips appropriate for the age/ability of the kids and the pack ran a full 12 month program. If a kid and family come to the signup night, the program is for them if you meet their needs/expectations.

OK FOLKS... THE GENDER ISSUE IS A WHOLE DIFFERENT TOPIC... THE TOPIC HERE IS 'DO WE HAVE A CULTURE OF GROWTH!... CAN WE RETURN TO THE TOPIC???

That continues throughout life as any married man will attest... LOL, some boys may mature faster than some girls, some girls faster than other girls... however, they will all have to live in a world filled with both genders and multiple levels of 'maturity'. We do know that for certain ages that boys prefer to hand with other boys and the same with girls but that is no reason to keep them apart in the program. Learning to appreciate each other through scouting makes a lot of sense to me. Many girls and parents are attracted to the BSA program for multiple reasons and they are valid reasons. The girls deserve to have a quality program built around character and citizenship and there is none better than BSA. IMHO

Kids attend school based on age, not on maturity which varies individual to individual with no emphasis on age. These days we are told that the higher reasoning functions of the brain are not fully developed until the mid 30's. Exploring has been co-ed for over half a century and Venturing since its inception. Most other countries have a blended program. Personally, I feel that co-ed scouting offers far more benefits than issues. IMHO

A great decision and parents of girls in the program are much more likely to step up and take leadership positions which has been on the decline for decades. We need both. About the only decision made in the past 5 decades that I 100% agree with.

I would suggest that every new scout be introduced to the Distinguished Conservation Award. If incorporated early it can join the trail to Eagle and a Scout can have two very prestigious awards. In fact the Distinguished Conservation award makes the Eagle look commonplace. Just a thought.

I agree with a lot of what you posted. Several big reasons for membership loss... In the 70's some folks shied away because they thought we were too militaristic, then there was a proliferation of other youth sports and activities. Volunteerism started to dwindle, single parent families exploded and mothers were no longer 'stay at home' to become den leaders for cubs. Tigers were added and Webelos became a 2 year (really 1.5) program and the added time in Cubs caused a drop in retention and crossover recently exacerbated now by Lions. The program drifted more into urban emphasis as Green Bar Bills' handbooks were replaced by book with more advancement and program geared to city life. As we exited the 90's and entered the 2000's a major confrontation came with the gay (now LGBTQ+) segment of the population which lobbied donors and funders including United Ways to cut funding and painted the BSA as homophobic, bigots and hate mongers. (not politically correct to say but true) and just recently on top of Covid impacted program delivery we had years of negative advertising in local papers, tv and social media on the lawsuit and resulting bankruptcy. There are a few other things I could toss in but suffice it to say that Nationals reactions and decisions were generally counter productive and that is being generous. Personally, I doubt that the BSA will ever 'recover'. We may do a bit better than just hang on but the glory days of Scouting will only exist in a few pockets of program where council and district leadership, professional and volunteer, act together to secure in their districts/council what should be possible nationally.

Been Campfire boys and girls for a long time and yes, it was the original 'sister program' to the BSA...

Trust me, even after hell freezes over the BSA and GSA will not merge. There are just too many differences from program structure to philosophical and frankly some 'resentment' built up over the years. It would make sense for a merger but just won't ever happen.

First, my council has not really provided the type of support to drive girls to the program. Second, apart from youth protection concerns which should be resolved with training having separate units for girls seems unnecessary and burdensome. Especially when you can share sponsors, leadership, meeting space and even do events and activities together. Few of our troops have established a female troop. Venturing has always been co-ed so why not Troops? Also, opportunities for more social type activities that would be age appropriate for both genders together would be welcome. I'm sure some councils and districts have that but many others are lacking. Personally, working with 'family camps' over the years and seeing how much the female siblings enjoyed the programs I'm just happy to see the BSA moving in the right direction but I think we still have a ways to go.

Great minds run in similar circles... lol

I've read about the Beaver Wars and native nations fighting each other... quite a different view then is projected today... 400 years doesn't change history... anyway, when you consider how many bodies, bones and mummy's are on display I suppose that can be quite disturbing. I wouldn't want my parents or grandparents dug up and stuck in a display case.

The National Office (Ivory Tower) had people who had been out of the district level for many years deciding on what direction to go. In 30 years I was never asked to share my success 'secrets'. Management by objective pretty much became 'the beatings will continue until production improves'. To be fair I did have some fine managers for many of the years I was in the profession but also just as many poor ones, some even incompetent.

You have some good and valid thoughts. The BSA has tried to mirror the GSA who dropped their age/grade requirements. As BSA traditional membership declined they added Tigers to boost numbers but failed to realize retention as the Cub program was now too long. Then they added Lions and compounded the problem. I would change the program and make the Cubs a 3 year program and then a separate Webelos unit/program for 2 years or closer to 1.5 with crossovers as they are now done in February. Adding girls to the program is a positive as it gives parents a 'one stop shop'. Girls have long wanted to be in the BSA. Sadly we are not properly supporting that aspect of membership.

About 40 years late... During my 30 years as a professional I nearly always had membership growth and not only that but balanced growth. Not only balanced but pretty much by age/grade level. Funny thing, no one ever asked me how I accomplished that. Journey to Excellence if pretty much useless... The measure of a unit should be retention of both youth and volunteer leadership. Quality programs result in retention and growth. Unit support, training, quality roundtables, making sure units have the tools to deliver a high quality experience and are meeting the needs and expectations of kids and parents is the only path to meaningful growth. Sadly, I don't really see that in the promo information. https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10219804925433639&set=a.2473191529196

Our school district asked the Onondagas for permission to continue to use the word Warrior which is not a native American word but were refused. We could have kept it with their blessing. The district changed their mascot 2 decades ago to a spartan/roman type warrior as a show of respect. Concerns me on any use of or reference to their culture, especially words. Time will tell if Lowanne Nimat Lodge or Longhouse words are allowed.

Our local school district has been told by the NY state board of education that we can no longer use the name 'Warrior' for our mascot. The mascot (a roman or spartan warrior) is fine, just can't use the term as ir might reflect upon native American 'warriors. I expect the Order of the Arrow will have to change along with our council's name (Longhouse). I have a long history of service with the through the Order of the Arrow including many hours of 'cheerful service' at camps, serving on ceremonial teams and as a lodge advisor. I attended the 50th anniversary NOAC as a youth and years later as lodge advisor. I gained a strong interest and respect for native nations as a result of my participation in the OA. Sadly, I think this 'woke' environment will result in the baby being tossed out with the bathwater. One more nail in the BSA coffin.

Eagle 94-A1 and OaklandAndy: Sad for your experiences. There are good and bad 'leaders' in every profession. I've had some awesome leaders and some of the worst. I don't want to dwell on these types of experiences but more on how to fix or improve councils and districts. The program 'starts and ends' with the units. Strong units = strong districts and strong districts = strong councils. Just as cubbing is the 'root' system for scouts, districts are the 'root system' for councils. If we have strong, independent units the future will be bright. Sadly, for decades, field staff were given the spurs to organize new units rather than strengthen and keep the existing ones. Weak units were allowed to continue to fall apart while energy was poured into creating new units that often were not needed or in competition with existing units for leadership and members. Folks at national who hadn't been in a district for decades called the shots. The districts primary purpose should always be to support the units. Everything they do should be to engage the unit leadership and assist it in delivering a program that retains membership and engages and meets the needs of both kids and parents.

And a bad leader blames his subordinates for the balls he drops... experienced that first hand. Water over the dam now but I expect it still goes on.

Experience is a hard teacher... The Philadelphia board quashed the placement of a new SE when they merged with Valley Forge. Flip side, the COR's were unable to stop the merger of Cortland and Syracuse councils even though they voted down the merger. Win some, lose some... Best advice is for units (and districts) to not be dependent on council. That means staying strong in leadership and program. Sadly, too many units fail to stay healthy. It is the responsibility of the units leadership and chartered partner to keep the unit healthy but these days that responsibility is too often not taken seriously. Sad state of affairs.

I always let my volunteers know that even though they were volunteers, others depended on them to do their job. I also made it a point to recognize them properly for their contribution to the district. The district committee or commissioner staff isn't a place to rest on your laurels and build tenure. Of course a district can always create an alumni committee for 'old or long timers' that want to remain affiliated but aren't up to performing for whatever reasons. They may be 'old and tired' but they 'paid their dues' and deserve a place at the fire...

I know of at least 3 cases where SE's were removed but that spans an over 30 year career. Doesn't happen often enough. Still, there are some very fine and competent SE's and councils that have them are fortunate.

I guess the 'good old boy' culture is still around. It is still up to the selections committee to do their best to get the right person for the job.

Depends on the council and the scout exec. Many boards are balanced with high profile people that lend their influence to expand the program and raise funds with program scouters that operate program related committees. Our council has a membership chairman on the board but no district membership committees... does that make any sense? We are poised to get a new scout exec in another month... we'll see what we end up with.