Is it time for a rethink?

[Eamonn]

First let me start by saying that I am in no way trying to reopen old topics.

I have been thinking about the way the BSA is structured.

Sure we need to have a National Office and I think because the country is so big we need to have Regional Offices. There may be a need to take a look at what these Regional Offices really do, but I will try to come back to that.

The Area Committee does do a lot and seems to do it without much fuss.

I am not so sure about the Council.

In our area we seem to have a lot of very small Councils and it seems that they are having a very hard time surviving. They seem to be very expensive and as the expense grows the level of service drops. Many Scout Executives that I talk with tell me that having to make payroll is becoming a real chore.

I am sure that some of the wise people in the forum know how or why we came to have the Councils that we have? I however look at them and it seems to me that they are there because they were there and have managed to make it this far for this long.

Is it time that we took a long hard look at Councils? Looked at the area they serve with a view to making them more efficient? This might mean changing boundaries and could result in fewer or maybe more councils.

I can't help thinking that we are doing it this way because we have always done it this way. I don't think this is a good reason.

Eamonn

[madkins007]

Round here, several smaller councils have been absorbed by bigger ones. It may be because of geography and logistics, but I don't see this as a particuarly good thing for either party involved.

 

I agree that we need a re-think, but I tend towards the other direction... the Confederate model rather than the Federal model. Instead of National trying to make policies that apply from the dusty Texas plains to inner-city LA to rural outstate Nebraska to our two non-continental states, I'd rather see a lot of that power reside more in the region and council level. National sets the basic standard, the local authorities decide how it is implimented.

 

National says 21 MBs for Eagle, with some from a specific pool. Locals decide which ones from the pool fit their needs.

 

National says what the uniform is for national events. Locals use this as the basis for variants that fit local needs and availability.

 

National gives training outline and goals, local builds on this and tailors training for thier needs.

 

National sets G2SS standards, from tent size to YPT to travel policies. Local build on this and add wherever needed to meet local conditions and laws.

 

 

[scoutldr]

On the other hand, why do COuncils keep forming new Districts? We recently went through a 3 for 1 split...we now need three of everything, including professional and commissioner staff, where before we had one. The excuse given was "national guidelines", however, 3 years later, we still have maybe one third of the district positions filled. There are no more units or youth that I can see...just more infrastructure.

[Fuzzy Bear]

We have a geographically large Council. There are 140 units in our District alone. Some people have to travel 45 minutes one direction to make it to our one monthly Roundtable which means they don't come and the large majority isnt served by the Commissioners staff. Pow-Wow is rotated among the Districts which means one District puts on that event by itself and the attendees from other areas are few. Some Districts act like a Council and operate with very little direct service from the main office. There is marginal interference from on high. We get most anything we want from the small local Scout Shop that is centrally located. It is difficult to get to know people even if one grew up here, since there is allot of movement in and out.

 

The logistics of deciding how much management and where appears to me to be a type of social accounting problem that most likely is a specialized field that may be done by a guy with thick glasses sitting in the National Office with the Regional offices gathering statistics from the locals. It does not make sense that somebody is asleep at the wheel allowing the whole meatball to run down the road on auto-pilot. Most large businesses havent operated that way for a long time but then again, maybe the guy in charge likes to let things alone.

 

FB(This message has been edited by Fuzzy Bear)

[BadenP]

Eamonn

 

I think the problem is in the corporate structure of the BSA. A local council provides a scout store and a camp to serve the scouts as well as DE's who are supposed to keep things organized and flowing smoothly in a district. What has happened in the pro scouting world is that many small and medium size councils have been folded into mega councils serving a large geographical region, supposedly to save money. The result has been local scouters have little say as to what happens on a council level concerning their districts,blanket policies that do not work in all areas, and DE's who are rarely seen or seem to do little in their districts.

 

I think,as a scouter and a former professional, that the solution lies in having more local councils who report directly to National and eliminating all the regional middle management, which mainly just duplicates National efforts anyway. Each council would be run by an SE and a Council Chair who is elected by and from the volunteers, creating a balance of power in administering to the needs of that council.

National would never go for this idea, sharing the power, but I feel it would eliminate most of the problems and corruption that is haunting the BSA today.

[Eamonn]

Back when I was Scouting in England, the only Professional Scouters were those who worked for the National Association.

99.9% of the time no one had any idea who these people were.

I know that there has been a lot of changes over there and it seems that they are becoming a little more BSA like.

At the time I was over there I was way too busy running a Troop to have concerns about much else.

The District was very much the heart of Scouting (After the Scout Group) The District Chairman, was not a very important position. But the District Commissioner was seen as being the Top Man.

Just about everything was run by volunteers. If you needed to pick up badges you went to see the Badge Secretary, he was available on Tuesday nights from 7:00 - 9:00.

We seemed to have a lot of District events and held a Scout Leaders meeting once a month. There was also a District Meeting once a month, chaired by the District Commissioner.

We didn't have a District or County office. While there were about a dozen National Camp Sites and some lucky Districts and some Counties did own camps, these tended to be just areas to camp. Some did have a pool, but there were no dining halls or camp staffs that would take care of badge work. There have been a lot of improvements to these and many have become Adventure Centers, with climbing walls and different sorts of ranges, but still they for the most part seem to be independent of any outside interests. They are used mainly at weekends and staffed by volunteers with maybe one full time employee. A couple of years back I camped with a Troop from London that was camping at Nottingham District camp site. The only time we saw the Camp Warden was when he opened the camp shop and that was only for about an hour a day.

I really can't see American Scouts and Leaders wanting to make that big a change.

When I look at our Council, which is one of the bigger Councils in our Area.

I see our June membership at 4,120 Traditional members.

The Learning for Life numbers seem to be like a yo-yo, but the reports say that we have 4,548 LFL Members.

We operate two camps, one summer camp that once the winter snow comes you can't get into until spring thaw. The other is very primitive, with only a couple of wells and outhouses for bathrooms. It does have one building and a Campmaster building. Summer Camp runs for seven weeks and serves about 1,500.

We have 2 Full time and 2 part time LFL workers who report to the Field Director, the 4 DE's also report to him. We have a full time Program Director, who used to be the Assistant SE and of course a SE. We have an office staff of 8.

When I see that we only have 88 packs, 79 Troops and 22 Crews. This seems like a lot of staff for 189 units.

A couple of years back we timbered the small camp and got $150,000 of which $100,00 went to upgrade our computer systems.

While we do have a very healthy and well managed endowment fund we ended last year $100,000 short and didn't put the money from a golf outing into the fund. This year it looks like we will end up $130,00 short and are looking at making some very large cuts.

Next year summer camp will cost a fair amount more. While up until now it has been OK for District events to break even, we will have to look at all events making money, maybe as much as 20%. And then there is the staff. The volunteers see the Program Director and work with him and like him. He has been here for a very long time. (Over 20 years)If he were to go the DE's could cover what he now does, but I'm unsure what it would do to the family FOS?

The volunteers don't see or know the Field Director and don't know much about LFL. If he were to go the SE would have to take care of that. There is talk about going down to 3 Districts, with so few units this seems like a good idea. How much service does the DE do for a Cub Scout pack?

We as a Council don't seem to have the same clout that we used to have, even ten years ago I could go into a local business and ask for the Boy Scouts and come out with a check, I now have to beg and those that do give seem to never have heard about inflation!! Trying to get the big bucks is becoming harder and harder. Even the volunteers seem to have the mindset that because they give of their time that there is no need to put their hand in their pocket.

While we have a big Metro Council on one side of us the one on the other side is a very large rural Council who is in far worse shape than we are.

As a District we do raise a fair amount of money. We could support a DE and a part time office worker. But is that what we want to do?

Eamonn.

[Scout Commish]

If I were to go in to my boss and tell him that I will exceed budget by cutting back on salespeople, reducing inventory, start charging people to enter the store, and reducing store hours; he would look at me like I was from Mars and then tell me that my talents might be better utilized elsewhere.

 

Yet, this is essentially what happens when a Council gets into trouble. The Scout Executive cuts back on DEs, reduces Scout Shop inventory, trys to make money on events, and reduces the service center hours. Usually the board allows this because it is meant to be a "temporary" measure. The region allows this because they have a mandate to merge councils for greater efficiency.

 

Yet nobody trys to increase revenues except the SE who is ill prepared to raise funds because he probably came from a big council where it was the finance directors job to worry about the money. His solution is to "lean" on the remaining DEs that are already doing more than one job.

 

If restructuring is needed, it would be to create a department who's job it is to help the councils raise funds. It would be measured by the number of councils who meet their budgets in operating revenues and endowments.

 

Scout Commish

[scoutldr]

Reminds me of a Dilbert cartoon...the pointy haired boss says "Profits are down, so I laid off half the sales staff."

 

 

[Eamonn]

Hi Scout Commish,

I do like your thinking.

For a very long time I have been saying that everything we do depends on the program we offer. Membership: If our youth are having fun and doing stuff they will bring their pals in.

If parents and the local community see and are aware of a good quality program they will stand behind it. and be more willing to support it financially.

At present we do seem to lack the volunteers who have the time and are willing to support the units, so that they can deliver a quality program.

Eamonn.

 

 

 

 

[rkfrance]

I think BadenP & Scout Commish are right on target. National and the SE's would never go for it because it would be a loss of authority on their parts to combine authority.

 

But how many DE's might jump at an opportunity for honest restructering that might, and I emphasize, might, make their jobs a little more normal and structered. Create a revenue generating position (a controller/CFO in corp America), someone trained for handling and making money. It takes a burden off the SE and the DE's. They would still be responsible to assist the function, but the major responsibility would fall on this person to find the ways to make it happen. (I feel that, the same as in corp America, the "fat" has already been trimmed about as thin as it can be.)

 

I, as a volunteer (just a volunteer! (DE humor)), think the idea of shared authority and responsibility would go a long way toward correcting many of the issues the BSA faces today.

[Scout Commish]

And the next department that needs shaking up is Public Relations. The current group needs to be renamed "Damage Control".

 

When is the last time that you read a positive piece in the paper or on TV that was generated by national?

 

It appears that National is suffering from inbreeding. When you have a troubled department or area of responsibility, it is sometimes a smart thing to hire from the outside and gain some new ideas and processes.

 

Restructuring is also a way to get rid of the fifedoms that develop over time.

 

National is overdue for a shake up.

 

Scout Commish

[rkfrance]

We are being told more and more frequently, Scouts should be treated like a business.

 

The CEO part is pretty easy to define. We've talked about adding a CFO. I'm sure there are enough VP positions to go around. PR is certainly needed.

 

The element that we've eluded to that is missing is - accountability to the shareholders.

[jkhny]

IMO, the problem with BSA is that it has become TOO much like a business with TOO many overpaid high level executives in multi-million dollar buildings. It is a large bureaucracy focused more on self-preservation than doing its job. It makes mistakes regularly - on a dramatic scale - and instead of working to improve things simply "circles the wagons".

 

I am not the first to say that after the changes instituted in the 70's BSA has not been the same. There is TOO Much of a focus on being a "business" and too little focus on serving boys and representing "Scouting."

 

The problem in BSA now seems to be current "management" and a "corporate culture" that has forgotten its mission. There have been many articles and postings commenting on the "disconnect" between the upper level of BSA and its volunteers. THIS IS THE REAL PROBLEM.

 

BSA is NOT supposed to exist to "increase numbers" and "raise more money."

 

BSA is SUPPOSED to exist to serve and support the volunteer leaders who run Scouting units. But current paid leadership seems to have forgotten this. BSA is one more "business" with to many "executives" concerned more about preserving their own power and perks than helping volunteers.

 

BSA's focus is on meeting superficial and meaningless goals. Truly bad senior paid staff are never fired - while dedicated Scouters at the DE level are driven out by a relentless push to meet "goals" by any means possible. Yet the HIGH Level paid staff are never held accountable for THEIR failures. Look at Atlanta and Alabama.

 

The obsession with "Statistics" has led to the current and far too widespread enrollment scandals. Paid staff at the low end are pressured to meet "goals" at all costs NOT to build a good quality Scouting program. SE's and those in Regional and National make far more than their counterparts at GSA or any other comparable non-profits geared towards serving youth. Instead of measuring REAL progress statistics are distorted to show "success" when none is occurring.

 

ANY criticisms - even those that are valid and worthwhile are ignored. I have read posts in the archives here by an Army officer who gave a clear outline of how to increase service to minority areas - one of BSA's recurring "problem" areas. He has been butting his head against a wall for decades. BSA would be far more successful listening to him and people like the unit leaders (the REAL unit leaders) in Atlanta - instead of faking results.

 

But BSA would rather take the "easy" course - like too many other "businesses.

 

Look at "Learning for Life." This is a contrived program designed more to solicit politically directed funding and increase "numbers" than serve youth. BSA itself says this is NOT "Scouting" yet includes its counts in the numbers it so widely touts. Failing to stem declines in Scouting - THIS program has been BSA's focus to build numbers. Some would say this is akin to opening a clinic simply to take advantage of Medicaid funding - signing up any patients you can get in the door. Would this program exist without government funding? SHOULD this program exist as part of Boy SCOUTS of America?

 

There is NO accountablity on the part of BSA leadership - to ANYONE. Look at the enrollment scandals. Why do they keep happening? Many claim this is a "small" problem. It is not - but it IS symptomatic of the very real problems in BSA. Look at the salaries paid to Scout Executives, Regional Staff and National staff. Yet BSA is failing - with continually declining numbers. In WHAT business would paid leadership be "rewarded" for these "results?"

 

Even when the volunteers CLEARLY have problems with paid staff it is impossible to change things. Look at Chicago. My Council in NY is the same. It is near impossible to oust auticratic and incompetent leadership - at the Council or National level.

 

The solution is simple - give volutnteers a REAL and DIRECT voice in their own Councils and in National. Let the Scouts and Scoutmasters run Scouting. If you have a great Scoutmaster or dedicated Scouter who's been involved in Scouting for decades THEY have more of an impact than any short serving DE concerned only with making his "numbers."

 

One of our most accomplished unit leaders made his pov clear - "I will not tolerate incompetence and dictatorial behavior where I VOLUNTEER my time."

 

The most accomplished unit leaders could help immensely if given a voice in Scouting. Yet they are ignored or punished for their efforts so they walk away or stay focused ONLY on their own units. BSA - and others - lose out.

 

 

[CNYScouter]

It seems to me that the Professional Scouters of the BSA have forgotten about what they teach all us volunteers in training:

 

Its not the destination thats important, but how you get there

 

Because They have such a focus on the goal (getting the numbers up) they dont care how they get there.

They are just concerned with the results instead of concentrating on making sure that good programs are being run that will draw in the kids to scouting.

 

CNYScouter

[Prairie_Scouter]

Any time you get a lot of money involved, you can expect power struggles. Any time you've got a big organization involved, you can expect power struggles.

 

But, we also shouldn't get too carried away. For every Council that has problems, there are probably 50 that do just fine. For every paid executive who's, well, "a jerk", there are probably 50 who are good people.

 

BSA is shrinking, for a variety of reasons, I think. BSA can come up with things like "Learning for Life" to make the numbers look better, but the fact remains that the organization is getting smaller.

 

Based on the discussions we like to have here, we could point to ideological issues and say that THAT's why BSA is getting smaller, but, to be honest, I think that that really has little to do with BSA's problems. I think very, very few people come to Scouts asking "do you allow gays and athiests" before they sign up. For the vast majority of people, it's really just not that important.

 

BSA has a model that is meant to grow character in growing boys, and uses the outdoors as its mechanism for doing so. One argument could be that not as many people want to visit the outdoors as in the past. That is refuted by the number of National Park visitors and the usage of state parks, I think. But, it could be that people want their outdoors in smaller bites than before. The outdoors in Scouting means weekend, and longer, trips. It could be that people don't want to commit that much time, when other venues are available that can be said to offer equal value.

 

A possible problem might be the lack of effort to keep up with the times. What do we read here? "The program is fine", "the program has worked for almost 100 years", "all you have to do is follow the program". Maybe the program isn't fine if the goal of BSA is to reach as many boys as possible. But, maybe that's ok, too.

 

So, what if BSA went with a "local option" in the program as well as application of other "issues". I'm thinking of something like the Venturing program, but applied across BSA all the way down to Cubs. Something like this.....

 

The overall "character" message remains the core of BSA. The outdoor program remains the core mechanism of that for now. But, BSA creates alternative core programs that reach the same goals, but through different mechanisms. Perhaps a "technology track" for areas where there is a large interest in computers or other technology related activities. Perhaps a "sports" track. And a small number of others, to keep it manageable. Basically, take things that are currently small elements of the program, and make them programs of their own. You intertwine the elements of character building into all of them.

 

Now, this is dramatically different than the historical underpinnings of Scouting, but so what? The idea is to help boys grow, not give them a history lesson. The biggest problem I see in BSA is the attitude that "everything is fine". Innovators need not apply. And maybe it is fine. Maybe BSA should satisfy itself with a particular focus, regardless of what their membership size becomes. But, if we want an organization that reaches out to boys of all kinds, then maybe some changes are needed to remain relevent. Change isn't always a bad thing, and just because something has been done the same way for 100 years doesn't mean that you can't improve on it.

 

So, perhaps we provide a local option, and give the local units more freedom to choose among a number of possible programs provided by BSA. BSA can control quality by providing, say, an annual checklist that says "here are 10 key components; you have to have 7 to be considered a BSA unit" (similar to the Quality Unit Award now).

 

And, the next thing I'd do is get every paid executive together and say "you know that whole thing about running BSA like a business? FORGET THAT!".