This is How We Will Grow Scouting

[qwazse]

@@meyerc13,

The problem with retaining Cubs is the same as the problem with recruiting Boys scouts.

Boys don't know the "end game". They have no picture of what they'll be like at the end of the process. A t-ball player has a vision of being a baseball star like those guys on TV. He might never get there, but knocking one out of the park is always in the back of his mind.

 

What does a cub have a vision of? It's often more meetings, more getting yelled at by even more adults, more pressure to bark for badges and medals, etc ...

 

@@NJCubScouter mentioned the HA bases and others mentioned the various tech-outdoor opportunities ... Guess what every other youth organization worth their salt has? (BTW, check out the YMCA of the Rockies if you ever get a chance.) Your council has cope? My high school has a climbing wall and sends their freshmen to our council cope course for a day, so why should students bother bother with jumping through the BSA red tape for that bit of adventure? Our sportman's club is free to any interested kid on Wednesday nights. Every big ticket whiz-bang that BSA can offer, someone else can give to your kid with fewer meetings.

 

Truth: most boys (and many girls, I figure) when they put a stick in a fire at age six are not imagining Seabase or Northern Tier or Philmont or the Jambo main stage. They are imaging they day when they and their buddies can put that stick in the fire without some adult badgering them ... that glorious day when they can walk off into the woods and laugh and play and build their own fort/sanctuary, swim in their favorite hole, and catch their own dinner and maybe be a hero to somebody, and then come home to a proud, trusting family and hang their pack at the end of the bed ready for their next outing. THAT'S WHAT WE OFFER. WHY AREN'T WE MARKETING THE TAR OUT OF IT?

[desertrat77]

They are imaging they day when they and their buddies can put that stick in the fire without some adult badgering them ... that glorious day when they can walk off into the woods and laugh and play and build their own fort/sanctuary, swim in their favorite hole, and catch their own dinner and maybe be a hero to somebody, and then come home to a proud, trusting family and hang their pack at the end of the bed ready for their next outing. THAT'S WHAT WE OFFER. WHY AREN'T WE MARKETING THE TAR OUT OF IT?

So true!

 

I've often asked myself why the BSA isn't marketing it's best product--outdoor adventure.   I've finally come to the sad conclusion that the BSA is now filled with adults that simply do not like the outdoors.

 

It didn't happen overnight.   Not sure when it began.   A little in the '70s.   More in the '80s.  Much more at the turn of the century.

 

You see them everywhere, the anti-outdoor crowd.   District.   WB staff.   Large populations at council.   Definitely well stocked at Irving.

 

They aren't obvious, but you can identify them quite easily.   They push programming/events that take place in town.   They thrive at meetings.   Kinda glum and uncomfortable when visiting a camporee.   More than likely won't spend a night in a tent.   If they venture as far as the council summer camp, it's for something like WB that involves picnic tables and ppt presentations in the mess hall.

 

To each their own.   Scouting has always had folks that aren't outdoors people, and everyone found their niche.   The problem today:   the non-outdoor people out-number the outdoor people quite a bit, especially in key positions that determine strategy, vision, and resource allocation.     In the past, the non-outdoor people just did their thing and kept quiet.   Not so anymore.   They impact the image and programming of scouting, and not for the better.

 

To me, it boils down to "birds of a feather."  The BSA hasn't projected a rugged outdoor image in many years.   The public at large knows this.   Many dynamic people who thrive in the outdoors take a look at the BSA and say "no thanks."   Why?   They don't see any like-minded people in the BSA, or very few.   

 

The BSA would be wise to ditch the passive/pie in the sky initiatives/management speak (as demonstrated in the article by Mike), and get outdoors.   High adventure or camping at the local farmer's property.   Doesn't matter.   Let that centennial uniform get a few bacon grease stains.  Have that campaign hat become a bit bent at the brim and otherwise stained with dust and sweat.  Get back to scouting's roots.

 

Scouting's successful future is going to be based on scouting's successful past.   This current baloney dreamed up by Irving--teams of graduated DEs/SEs with MBAs that don't like outdoor adventure, giving smooth briefings in the conference room--ain't going to cut it.

 

The numbers tell the story.

Edited October 10, 2015 by desertrat77

[eagle90]

Amen, Desertrat77.  Well Said

 

Dale

[Stosh]

You seem to presume two things:

1) that the decline would not have happened anyway for any reasons, and

2) that you seem to 'know' what the problem is and how to solve it.

 

After watching things over the past 65 years. I have a pretty good idea of how things work.  Ford, Chevy and Chrysler were pretty much the only cars on the road.  Detroit ruled the world.  Scouting was in its heyday.   In my college finance class, it was noted that GM was too big to fail.

 

The world changed, but the people didn't.  People still drive cars, more cars than back in the 1960's.... Kids still are involved in youth programs.

 

What makes Toyota better than GM?  What makes Honda better than Ford?  What makes soccer better than Scouts?

 

Once one starts asking the right questions, they will start getting the right answers.  Until then, I hope your Mustang keeps running another year.  After all, Ford set the pace with that model in 1964, it's still around, never went away and one sees a ton of them on the road.  What are they doing that GM and Chrysler aren't. 

 

So maybe the sky is falling, but don't worry, with one's head in the sand, they will never notice.  I have studied business, marketing, and been involved with youth for 45 years.  I have a fairly good perspective from where I stand.  How's about Chamberlain's perspective?

[Eagle94-A1]

Scouting's successful future is going to be based on scouting's successful past.   This current baloney dreamed up by Irving--teams of graduated DEs/SEs with MBAs that don't like outdoor adventure, giving smooth briefings in the conference room--ain't going to cut it.

 

The numbers tell the story.

 

Sad thing is, those DEs who are pro-program either leave in disgust, or are pushed out. 

[Twocubdad]

Truth: most boys (and many girls, I figure) when they put a stick in a fire at age six are not imagining Seabase or Northern Tier or Philmont or the Jambo main stage. They are imaging they day when they and their buddies can put that stick in the fire without some adult badgering them ... that glorious day when they can walk off into the woods and laugh and play and build their own fort/sanctuary, swim in their favorite hole, and catch their own dinner and maybe be a hero to somebody, and then come home to a proud, trusting family and hang their pack at the end of the bed ready for their next outing. THAT'S WHAT WE OFFER. WHY AREN'T WE MARKETING THE TAR OUT OF IT?

 

That's the post of the month!

 

Remember that ad from South Africa Scouts a month or so ago?  The one with the boy rescuing the girl from the surf, but at the end the video changes and it turns out the boy is now a grown man, rescuing his daughter using skills he learned as a Scouts?  http://aplus.com/a/scouts-south-africa-cpr-ad-drowning

 

Same concept, except with a bunch of college-aged guys sitting around a campfire, joking, laughing, having a good time when a little kid in a Scout uniform walks up and asks, "permission to enter camp?"  The older guys all straighten up, quit laughing and answer, "yes, sir!"  The Scout asks how their dinner was and one of the older guys respond, somewhat oddly, "It was great. I've never had burgers cooked on a real fire before."  The little kid says, "Well, you learned something new.  That's what it's all about."  The video then changes back and forth and you realize it's an identical group of young boys sitting around the fire, the kid in uniform is actually an adult Scoutmaster who turns to walk away disappearing in the dark and says, "have a good night, I'll be in my campsite if you need me."  The boys around the campfire resume laughing as the title fades in, "Lessons for Life.  Memories for a Lifetime.  Boy Scouts of America."

 

You can think of dozens of scenarios to communicate the same idea.

[vumbi]

After watching things over the past 65 years. I have a pretty good idea of how things work.  Ford, Chevy and Chrysler were pretty much the only cars on the road.  Detroit ruled the world.  Scouting was in its heyday.   In my college finance class, it was noted that GM was too big to fail.

 

The world changed, but the people didn't.  People still drive cars, more cars than back in the 1960's.... Kids still are involved in youth programs.

 

What makes Toyota better than GM?  What makes Honda better than Ford?  What makes soccer better than Scouts?

 

Once one starts asking the right questions, they will start getting the right answers.  Until then, I hope your Mustang keeps running another year.  After all, Ford set the pace with that model in 1964, it's still around, never went away and one sees a ton of them on the road.  What are they doing that GM and Chrysler aren't. 

 

So maybe the sky is falling, but don't worry, with one's head in the sand, they will never notice.  I have studied business, marketing, and been involved with youth for 45 years.  I have a fairly good perspective from where I stand.  How's about Chamberlain's perspective?

LOL, none of which answered the question of whether the decline might have happened no matter what.

And none of that offered even a hint of what your solution might be.

But going with that absurd comparison of BSA to Ford Motor Company, there are precious few 1964 Mustangs on the highway today and precious little similarity between that Falcon-based version and the things that bear the name today. I also observe that there has been a huge decline in numbers of Mustangs sold over the years as well, about 12% of what sold in 1966.

[JoeBob]

LOL, none of which answered the question of whether the decline might have happened no matter what.

The decline is numbers is not a problem.  The decline in the quality of the program is.

 

And none of that offered even a hint of what your solution might be.

I'm sorry; I missed your solution.  Should I read your post again?

 

But going with that absurd comparison of BSA to Ford Motor Company, there are precious few 1964 Mustangs on the highway today and precious little similarity between that Falcon-based version and the things that bear the name today. I also observe that there has been a huge decline in numbers of Mustangs sold over the years as well, about 12% of what sold in 1966.

 

Stosh, I know that you can defend yourself.  Sorry to butt in.  Sometimes the folks taking shots but offering nothing positive in response aggravate me. 

That's my job.

 

[Sentinel947]

I thought the biggest error in 'Mike's' vision was pretty obvious.  Then I started reading all your posts and made a game of seeing how long it would take for someone else to catch on...

 

FINALLY Hedgehog said: 'Go outside

.

Finally being post 8. Unless the word go is required.

[ProScouter06]

Part of my issue with ScoutReach (which is mentioned in the blog post) is that after all the words I have read about it, I am still not clear on exactly what measures are used to attract more units and more members in the "underserved communities." Most of it (including the page linked from the blog post) seems to focus on the goals of ScoutReach and how Scouting can benefit these communities, which is fine as far as it goes but doesn't tell me anything I didn't already know. My question is, what are they actually doing? They are talking about "enhanced ScoutReach" but I don't see much on that page that seems "enhanced." Part of it is promotion and marketing, part of it is getting kids into one program and trying to lure them from that into Scouting (see Scouting, Soccer and, above), and part of it is providing grants for fees and expenses when regular fundraising is insufficient. It's all nice but it hardly seems new or innovative or enhanced. It's probably just nibbling on the edges of the problem. My question is, do any of these ScoutReach programs finance paid Scouters to do what volunteers do in areas where volunteers are more plentiful? In other words, paid Cubmasters and Scoutmasters? It seems to me I have read about that somewhere but I don't know if it actually exists. I realize that would be a controversial idea and would involve big bucks, but quite frankly if the goal is to get big numbers to join Scouting in areas where almost all the parents are wondering where their next meal is coming from and dealing with all the issues of a troubled urban (or remote rural) area, I think that's what it would take.

I'll answer this one @@NJCubScouter. The delivery of scout reach varies slightly from council to council all depending on council resources aka staff and funding. In one council I worked in our scout reach units were organized in urban areas of the district with volunteers running the units. They were considered scoutreach bc the kids could not afford day camp, uniforms etc so we found funding to make those things happen. In another council that I worked in we had an entire scout reach division that included paraprofessionals who acted as paid cub masters and scout masters. They ran incredible programs for Urban units and the kids and families involved were great scouts. Beyond running the units, staff worked diligently to recruit volunteers. Since many families were low income, single parent and also with language barriers this recruiting to build a volunteer run unit sometimes could take years but the overall goal of making them run by parents and volunteers is the long range strategy.

 

IMO this latter example of scout reach is one of the BSA's best hope to grow membership in traditional scouting programs like cub scouts and Boy Scouts.

 

As others have said the exploring thing is nice. But that takes resources. I agree with many of the folks on this thread that we have a great outdoor program for youth and that is what we should be out marketing to prospective families. LFL, stem, nice ways to stay innovative but will never replace the real Boy Scout oriented program. That's what our foundation is built on and that's what our brand is.

[Stosh]

 

LOL, none of which answered the question of whether the decline might have happened no matter what.

The decline is numbers is not a problem.  The decline in the quality of the program is.

Or, there are more kids in the world today and they are all choosing a program that meets their needs and it's not scouts.  Which makes the decline even worse.

 

And none of that offered even a hint of what your solution might be.

I'm sorry; I missed your solution.  Should I read your post again?

It would seem that Irving is listening to that which they want to hear, what make anyone think someone from there's going to listen to me?  It sounds like an opportunity for me to waste my breath.

 

Lets just put it this way.  I have worked with youth for 40+ years as I have stated before.  While my scouting units struggles, other youth programs I work with don't.  Why is that?   

 

But going with that absurd comparison of BSA to Ford Motor Company, there are precious few 1964 Mustangs on the highway today and precious little similarity between that Falcon-based version and the things that bear the name today. I also observe that there has been a huge decline in

numbers of Mustangs sold over the years as well, about 12% of what sold in 1966.

How many Toyotas are there on the road today compared to 1964.... Hondas?  And as an added bonus, How many AMERICAN MADE Toyotas are on the road today?  With the big automaker bailout promoted by US tax dollars how much of the political pie landed in Toyota's pockets?  They are as American made as Chrysler..... The world has changed and who's winning in the world of automobiles and carry that further who's winning in the world of youth organizations?  GM used to be too big to fail.  but they did.  BSA used to be a social powerhouse in our society.  Can't really claim that anymore.  The dynamics are the same.

 

Stosh, I know that you can defend yourself.  Sorry to butt in.  Sometimes the folks taking shots but offering nothing positive in response aggravate me. 

 

 

 

That's my job.

And you do it so well.  

 

Edited October 11, 2015 by Stosh

[cyclops]

 

 

 

 

 

Lets just put it this way.  I have worked with youth for 40+ years as I have stated before.  While my scouting units struggles, other youth programs I work with don't.  Why is that?   

It's YOUR scouting unit. If you can't figure it out, why do you expect someone else to clean it up for you?

[ALongWalk]

I am on my district's committee and am included on many of the council's emails about results.....finance, membership, and recently.....unit camping trips....and not just Scout Camp. I was surprised to see the "camping" email because I have never seen that as a focus from the council but gosh I was happy to see it. That tells me that they realize that we have to get the boys out in the woods and in tents to make this program work. I hope that email is the beginning of asking us to work with the units who are not doing the program as they should. Something we and the commissioners should be doing anyway.

 

I am not a big outdoors guy but I KNOW it is at the core of what makes the program great. My son is away with his troop this weekend.....rain and all. He will come back with a memory of this short trip that he will carry with him for life.

[Stosh]

It's YOUR scouting unit. If you can't figure it out, why do you expect someone else to clean it up for you?

#2

[Eagle94-A1]

It's YOUR scouting unit. If you can't figure it out, why do you expect someone else to clean it up for you?

 

 

I believe, and correct me if I am wrong, but he is referring to units he is a UC for.

 

One of the great benefits, as well as great disadvantages, is that every unit is different. It's a benefit in that if a unit does not meet you needs, you can hopefully findone that does. It can be a disadvantage when a unit's leadership leadership thinks they know better than the former unit leaders, district trainers, and UCs assigned to them, and they do their own thing. And doing their own thing does not include using the methods of Scouting.

 

I have such a unit in my district. They were hemorrhaging Scouts, and have only stopped due to a HA trip next year. Last time I camped with them, they were nowhere near ready for HA. Ihope a lot have changed since then.