Outside Magazine: Boy Scouts Should Allow Girls

[Gwaihir]

Ultimately, if the BSA decides to embrace a full co-ed program, I presume that bathroom facilities at camps will not stop them.  That's easily solved with a little money.  After all - so many girls will want to join that the new revenue will easily outpace any expenditures for new bath facilities.

 

So many girls?  I think you over estimate those numbers. 

[Back Pack]

Ultimately, if the BSA decides to embrace a full co-ed program, I presume that bathroom facilities at camps will not stop them.  That's easily solved with a little money.  After all - so many girls will want to join that the new revenue will easily outpace any expenditures for new bath facilities.

Rofl..."easily solved with a little money"? So where does this money come from, because our camps have needed upgraded facilities for years. Would this money come from all the new Scouts that will join like the rush of gay scouts and leaders that's joined since 2015?

 

Come on, let's be real. Successful companies don't expect profits on new products UNLESS they've done extensive market research and have numbers to back up their new product line. BSA does not have that. You have assumptions based on conjecture. Where's all the money that was going to flow in to scouting from new members and sponsors after the last policy change?

 

Making uninformed policy changes and ill conceived product launches is not what successful companies do.

[Eagle94-A1]

Ultimately, if the BSA decides to embrace a full co-ed program, I presume that bathroom facilities at camps will not stop them.  That's easily solved with a little money.  After all - so many girls will want to join that the new revenue will easily outpace any expenditures for new bath facilities.

 

I hope that's sarcasm. Money is not the only issue in building bath houses, at least in my neck of the woods. Due to tons of environmental regulations we are still in the process, after 10+ years, of trying to build a new bath house at the camp I referenced above

[ParkMan]

Sort of.  It was said in jest - but there is some truth there.

 

Admitting girls to the BSA and making the program coed would be a huge deal.  For the BSA to delay a decision of that magnitude because they didn't have the right bathroom facilities would be surprising.

 

If they do this, I expect that the national organization will announce a timeline.  i.e.

- The BSA will become co-ed on Sept. 1, 2018

- Councils will be expected to have sufficient temporary facilities to support this that that time

- Councils will be expected to update their permanent facilities by Jan 1, 2021.

 

Something like that.

 

The President of the BSA will never say "we'd like to go co-ed, but the don't have enough bathrooms."

[Col. Flagg]

Admitting girls to the BSA and making the program coed would be a huge deal.  For the BSA to delay a decision of that magnitude because they didn't have the right bathroom facilities would be surprising.

It's not just lack of infrastructure, it's having to retool the program. It's having to re-write all the documentation to make it gender-neutral. It's about designing and manufacturing all the uniforms that will fit girls. It's about having all the training in place for the adults so they will be able to comply with YPT standards. It's about recruiting the female leaders so that coed units can go on adventures and events without it being led my all male leaders.

 

Why rush in to the decision without knowing it's full impact? They can't spend money they (BSA) does not have yet, and councils may need time to prepare. Your oversimplification of this changes is either a) on purpose, or b) shows you have no idea of what would need to change to make coed Scouting effective and successful. It is NOT just opening the door as it is now and saying, "Come on in, gals!"  

 

If they do this, I expect that the national organization will announce a timeline.  i.e.

- The BSA will become co-ed on Sept. 1, 2018

- Councils will be expected to have sufficient temporary facilities to support this that that time

- Councils will be expected to update their permanent facilities by Jan 1, 2021.

National can dictate all they want, but if the councils don't have the money what then? What happens if a council does not have the temporary or permanent facilities by these dates?

 

The President of the BSA will never say "we'd like to go co-ed, but the don't have enough bathrooms."

 

I think you are being simple about this issue. It's not about bathroom and shower facilities. It is about rushing in to a decision that could have huge financial and program impacts on councils who ALREADY don't have enough money. There's no guarantee as to how much revenue adding girls will bring in. The changes I noted above are just a few that would need too happen to accommodate women. Calculated all those costs AND THEN subtract the revenue from that. THAT will tell you what your profit will be.

[RememberSchiff]

And yet years ago, the BSA did all those changes and more for the those with disabilities.

Edited June 16, 2017 by RememberSchiff

[qwazse]

Oh, I see a fundraiser coming ...

"The get us Coeducational capital campaign"

BSA promotes the line: we want girls, but they want shower stalls.

Nation-wide they estimate the cost of expanding facilities in every council camp as mandated by state regs ... or the fees for the legal wrangling needed for waivers, whichever is less.

Then they tell activist donors that they will put forward a proposal at the national meeting once adequate contributions have been made to ensure female scouts anywhere in the country will have the facilities they desire (asked for or not).

 

My line to activists has always been: show us the membership. Maybe it needs to be: show us the money.

[RememberSchiff]

Something like this should do. Screens would help.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhy73y4RvhA&utm_source=social&utm_medium=status%2Bupdate&utm_campaign=jamboree

Edited June 17, 2017 by RememberSchiff
screens

[ParkMan]

It's not just lack of infrastructure, it's having to retool the program. It's having to re-write all the documentation to make it gender-neutral. It's about designing and manufacturing all the uniforms that will fit girls. It's about having all the training in place for the adults so they will be able to comply with YPT standards. It's about recruiting the female leaders so that coed units can go on adventures and events without it being led my all male leaders.

 

Why rush in to the decision without knowing it's full impact? They can't spend money they (BSA) does not have yet, and councils may need time to prepare. Your oversimplification of this changes is either a) on purpose, or b) shows you have no idea of what would need to change to make coed Scouting effective and successful. It is NOT just opening the door as it is now and saying, "Come on in, gals!"  

 

National can dictate all they want, but if the councils don't have the money what then? What happens if a council does not have the temporary or permanent facilities by these dates?

 

 

I think you are being simple about this issue. It's not about bathroom and shower facilities. It is about rushing in to a decision that could have huge financial and program impacts on councils who ALREADY don't have enough money. There's no guarantee as to how much revenue adding girls will bring in. The changes I noted above are just a few that would need too happen to accommodate women. Calculated all those costs AND THEN subtract the revenue from that. THAT will tell you what your profit will be.

 

I'm not suggesting that they'll rush it.  I'm suggesting that they'll look at it as a strategic decision based around perceived future health of the movement.

 

As the BSA isn't a for profit organization they're not really looking at profit.  They're looking at cash flow.  i.e, does the organization bring in enough money every year to enable it to stay solvant, pay the staff, accomplish the tasks it wants to do, .  In that, the amount of cash flow becomes important - but only to an extent.  I expect that at it's most senior levels, they're looking at 3-5 projections on membership.  I am certain someone has a chart that shows modest membership growth as a result of adding girls.  Ultimately, I expect that it's that chart that will drive the decision.

 

Yes, someone will do an impact analysis on going.  What is the cost to councils, the national organization?   But, it will be seen as an investment.  We will spend "X" and the councils will spend "Y" so that in 5 years, we will see membership growth.

 

That's why I think facilities won't drive this decision.  The senior execs will not prevent this choice because it's too expensive to invest in the future of the org.  It's like businesses taking on debt to fund an expansion that's in the long term interest of the company.

[TAHAWK]

Just what kind of facilities improvements do folks think Scout Camps are going to need to make?  Females have been allowed to be Scoutmasters since the 1980's - they've already got things figured out.

 

It may be a matter of scale.  A few facilities suitable for girls may not be enough.  On the other hand, new shower construction for yeasr has been on the basis of single occupant spaces.  We do, after all, have Venturers using the same camps.

 

And I still worry about change for the sake of PC.

[Back Pack]

And yet years ago, the BSA did all those changes and more for the those with disabilities.

Really? You are equating the few disabled scout accommodations with the whole sale addition of women? Come on, you have to see that's a silly comparison.

 

Also, in my camps there are only a few handicap bathrooms and shower facilities. Why? Because there's only ever a few such Scouts. Adding women potentially DOUBLES your need for facilities. Now if you could only require units to be single sex it would be easier.

[Back Pack]

@@ParkMan, you said "As the BSA isn't a for profit organization they're not really looking at profit".

 

Boy Scouts is a federally chartered corporation. They are very much for profit. They are NOT a nonprofit. Your CO may be, but BSA itself is not.

[eagle90]

I think Outside Magazine should go back to reviewing over-priced camping gear and telling us about treks and trips the normal Scouter cannot afford instead of telling the BSA how to run its operation.

[TAHAWK]

@@ParkMan, you said "As the BSA isn't a for profit organization they're not really looking at profit".

 

Boy Scouts is a federally chartered corporation. They are very much for profit. They are NOT a nonprofit. Your CO may be, but BSA itself is not.

The Boy Scouts of America is a 501©(1) federally-chartered non-profit corporation.

 

You can see a recent letter from the IRS confirming this status here:  http://usscouts.org/usscouts/aboutbsa/nonprofit.asp

 

Really easy to find by Googling Boy Scouts of America nonprofit.

[RememberSchiff]

Really? You are equating the few disabled scout accommodations with the whole sale addition of women? Come on, you have to see that's a silly comparison.

 

Also, in my camps there are only a few handicap bathrooms and shower facilities. Why? Because there's only ever a few such Scouts. Adding women potentially DOUBLES your need for facilities. Now if you could only require units to be single sex it would be easier.

Silly? I doubt the added membership came close to repaying the ramps ( a lot of ramps), bath and shower facilities and yet it was done. The BSA decided it had to be done. 

 

I would not be surprised if the expense of handicap ramps and rails alone exceeds the cost of new  bathhouse. As I said before our Councils had to upgrade to meet state health codes.

 

Why not Summit-level toilet and shower  facilities at all local camps?

Edited June 18, 2017 by RememberSchiff