The Boy Scouts In Crisis - A Historian's Perspective

[CynicalScouter]

I think it is an interesting exercise but I would put it this way. As PACAN noted

Quote

In 1972 the BSA membership peaked at 6.5M youth

Why the decline? There's a lot of internal pointing that there were programmatic failures and that BSA National caused its own downfall.

I also want to suggest something else: BSA Scouting has run its course, was created and functional of a certain time and place that no longer exists, and that it will shamble on a husk NOT because of anything BSA did internally but because the environment changed.

In other words, the "crisis" in Boy Scouts of America was it was designed, shaped, built, premised, and principled for America circa 1930. Maybe post-WW2. But that's it.

Robert Putnam alluded to this 20 years ago in Bowling Alone: these kinds of organizations are simply dying out. And millennials are apt to volunteer/sponsor/participate in a single program and then jump to another one in a matter of months. You cannot build a sustained organization like that.

Put BSA in the historical context of such a collapse and it makes "sense" that BSA is likely going to drop in terms of membership. THEN add in the missteps by National. THEN add in a society that looks at mid-20th century Americana as anachronistic, implicitly invalid (racist, sexist, etc.), and so on.

I would also perhaps put BSA in contrast with other organizations. Put it in context. Was BSA's decline in numbers similar to that in others?

4-H was in freefall for years, starting in 1974 when it peaked at 7.4 million. It dropped to around 5.5 million by the 1990s but is back up to 6 million or so now. Why did they come back (or at least remain stable) while BSA dropped like a stone?

 

[yknot]

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

4-H was in freefall for years, starting in 1974 when it peaked at 7.4 million. It dropped to around 5.5 million by the 1990s but is back up to 6 million or so now. Why did they come back (or at least remain stable) while BSA dropped like a stone?

 

Those are exactly the kinds of questions BSA needs to be asking and researching. I would say 4H has survived because it hasn't been afraid to change and because it has remained relevant to an evolving youth market. It's much more elastic. You can say the same of youth sports and other youth organizations. BSA is pretty moribund.

 

[RememberSchiff]

8 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

I think it is an interesting exercise but I would put it this way. As PACAN noted

Why the decline? There's a lot of internal pointing that there were programmatic failures and that BSA National caused its own downfall.

I also want to suggest something else: BSA Scouting has run its course, was created and functional of a certain time and place that no longer exists, and that it will shamble on a husk NOT because of anything BSA did internally but because the environment changed.

Good considerations. My take is different.

BSA Scouting took some wrong paths, which seemed to respond to the times but did not.  Get back on the right path with the old map.

My $0.02,

[InquisitiveScouter]

9 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

I also want to suggest something else: BSA Scouting has run its course,

I do not believe it has "run its course."  Rather, flip the script...Is there a need that Scouting fills?  Or better yet, in the big picture, What is the problem we are trying to solve with Scouting?

BP saw a problem in the structures (or lack thereof) that society used to bring youth into full adulthood, with the physical, spiritual, emotional, social, fiscal, (and more?) accoutrements (aka character) necessary for a well functioning society.  He thought Scouting could address those problems.

https://infed.org/mobi/robert-baden-powell-as-an-educational-innovator/

Do those selfsame problems exist for youth in our society today?  I would posit they are even more pronounced.  That is why I am a Scouter...I am deeply concerned with the future of our country, upholding our founding principles, and our way of life as Americans.  If we do not raise them to replace us, then, will all we have built be lost?

Edited November 26, 2020 by InquisitiveScouter

[CynicalScouter]

2 hours ago, RememberSchiff said:

Get back on the right path with the old map.

My point is that going back to some "golden age" (Pick a date here. 1960?) and replicating that program won't work because that was a program for a different time.

You literally cannot (legally) do some of the things that were permitted in 1960.

In other words, if you simply took the Fifth Edition of the Scoutmaster's Handbook (1960) and the Sixth Edition of Boy Scout Handbook (also 1960) and said "do this" it wouldn't work.

We aren't the nation we were in 1960. Offering up that 1960 program today would not work.

 

[ParkMan]

22 hours ago, qwazse said:

Dude, read the "Scouts in Action" pieces in Boy's Life. Those are just random samples from the numerous awards of merit because scouts retained their skills well enough to save someone's life. It's not about the scout forestalling his/her death (although that effect is possible), it's about him/her forestalling our death from a panoply of causes ... drownings, burns, infections from knife wounds, insect-borne parasites, venomous bites, food-borne illness, mishandled firearms.

I'm not for a moment suggesting that Scout skills will not keep you from dying.   Ahh - I understand your point better now.  I think the whole lifesaving thing in Scouting is overblown - but that's just me.  Kids are all very different and join for different reasons.  Some for lifesaving skills, some to learn outdoor skills, some just for fun.

I think back to your prior comment:

On 11/24/2020 at 9:11 PM, qwazse said:

But this is the critical distinction — the switch, if you will — that distinguishes BSA’s ascending first 6 decades from the declining latter 6: For a scout, what is rank (or as GBB put it in his handbook, a progress award)? 

• a set of skills that enables one to overcome the challenges of life and even forestall death, no matter when and at what station one masters those skills.
• a developmental track for teens and pre-teens to complement what they are not getting taught in school?

I'm just one that thinks that Scouting today is more about adventure and challenge for youth.  The purpose is to prepare them for life, but it's the adventure and challenge that is the game.  Back in the first half of the 20th century, life for kids probably had a different sort of challenge than it does today.  Bad stuff was more likely to happen than it is today.

It's like when I was a kid - we had an emergency kit in our care because if we broke down we might not get help.  Today we call AAA and someone is there within an hour to help us out.  There is just a different sort of support network today than there was back then.  Yet, my kids today are much more intune with the life benefits of exercise, fitness, etc. than I was at their age.  Why - because when I was a kid we had different life challenges to worry about.  That was the crux of my point. 

[skeptic]

For some reason I find myself thinking that one of the reasons we are in our current position is that our legal system has allowed the sixties to be dragged to the current era.  That may say more than some are willing to admit?

[ParkMan]

2 hours ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

I do not believe it has "run its course."  Rather, flip the script...Is there a need that Scouting fills?  Or better yet, in the big picture, What is the problem we are trying to solve with Scouting?

This is in many ways the question that we are all struggling to answer.

12 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

And millennials are apt to volunteer/sponsor/participate in a single program and then jump to another one in a matter of months. You cannot build a sustained organization like that.

And in this I think we see that even millennials are looking around for an answer.  I'm also reminded that we are not even really marketing to millennials any more - we're targeting Gen-Z and increasingly Gen-A youth.  

21 hours ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

That, and the needed skill set for a 15 year old to succeed was not as great or complex as it is today, imho.

 

20 hours ago, HICO_Eagle said:

I would argue the skill set needed for a 15 year old to succeed in 1865, 1929, or 1941 was greater and more complex than today. 

I think it would be a mistake for us to infer this.  The risk of death is certainly lower today.  However, the challenges to succeed are as great as they've been.  The skills kids have evolved for certain, but that doesn't mean that there are fewer skills needed.  If I look at my profession, we are as far from a hands on profession as you can get.  But, the skills needed by our young adults are high.  Further, the skills that are most needed are the same as they have always been - a sense of drive, confidence, resourcefulness, problem solving, team work, willingness to try, willingness to take risk.  There are the kind of skills that Scouting excels at helping a youth develop.  

The outdoors is our game and it's a good one.  Getting kids outdoors is a great way for them to adventure, have fun, and build skills.  Perhaps in BP's day those skills were part of the purpose as they could keep you from dying.  But today, those outdoor skils are less necessary.  However, the other skills that Scouting excels at developing are indeed needed.  

 

[TAHAWK]

Writing about behaviors and motivation of the living is rarely "history."  

[vol_scouter]

13 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

4-H was in freefall for years, starting in 1974 when it peaked at 7.4 million. It dropped to around 5.5 million by the 1990s but is back up to 6 million or so now. Why did they come back (or at least remain stable) while BSA dropped like a stone?

 

4-H made a big push in STEM programming and grew by a couple of million.  It has been very successful and is meeting a large demand for STEM activities.  Both youth and their parents want more STEM programs.

 

[yknot]

A lot of our discussion on this thread and elsewhere on this forum is on what we all think should or should not happen with scouting. A common comment is that today's kids "need" scouting. However much many people here may believe that, I'm not sure that that is a clarion call to youth.  I think we need to find out what kids and their families want or need from an organization like scouting. I wish we had some real, non BSA (meaning objective) data on why kids join, don't join, or leave. I know we all try to get information and feedback out of scouts whether in BORs or in trying to recruit around town but it's not enough. I also think when people know you are involved in scouting they don't always tell the truth because they don't want to offend you. I know I often hear one thing when I ask a kid or a parent why they are dropping out or not joining, but my sons often hear something else when they talk amongst themselves. 

[SSScout]

Case in point.  Scoutmaster sitting with newly elected PLC and new SPL.   The discussion is about next year's activities.  Where to go? What to do?   None of these Scouts is new to the camp and hike and tie knots stuff, but....  eventually, the SPL spurts out "you mean I can make that decision?"  the SM exclaims "DUH ! ! !"    It is the same in many of the Middle School classes I sub taught.  Those 11, 12 and 13 year olds WAIT  to be told what they should say, how they should react to questions.  It was more often than not the case that I had to "pull teeth " to have any kind of real discussion.   Perhaps we were that way back when I was 12, but then, I had a job mowing grass and cleaning my dad's trucks.  I was EXPECTED to be responsible. 

Kids will join and stay with Scouting for the same reasons they joined in the earlier days.  Safe (relatively) Outdoor Adventure.  The  bling and recognition for "mastering skills" is important in it's own right. Underline MASTERING.   ScoutsBSA cannot just be "Doing Your Best"  as in Cubs.  The skills need to be demonstrated as being MASTERED.   My experience in Scouts coming to Bugling MB class at a MBCollege is illustrative of this. The nascent Wynton Marsalis is rare, but the Scout with a borrowed or even brand new (still in the plastic wrap!) horn who cannot even make a buzz is not rare.  They come expecting to learn and play and EARN the badge in one three hour session.. Nuts.

The last MBCollege I participated in , I had two three hour sessions each in two weekends, a month apart.  The plan, for any MB this time 'round, was that the Scout would do two saturdays, the in between days spent applying what was assigned/ learned the first weekend.  I teach and discuss the requirements, the science of music, I demonstrate a garden hose Bugle (they always like that), and thus....    So, five Scouts in each session, ten over two weekends.  First saturday, of the two groups of five, (ten), one ("A") was from a previous MBCollege ( he still couldn't play the calls), two (B & C) were in their school bands and played well, one  (D) was GOOD, and passed the first time ! One (E) had a new (in the wrapper !) horn, but followed my instruction and TRIED. (F), (G) and (H) admitted they were there because their parents wanted them to be and had borrowed horns,  and (J) was in attendance because his first choice of MB was full, he had no horn, but borrowed one from another Scout and tried.  I gave them all my info and handouts and encouraged them to practice, call on me if they needed help and return.  None called me.

 Second weekend:  By this time , they have had  4 weeks  to practice.... (A) returned, still couldn't play the calls. (B), (C), returned and completed the MB fairly well. I signed their cards.  (D) did not return, I signed off on his card last time. (E) did not return . (F),(G), (H)  showed they had gained some skill in the interim, I gave them  "Partials" . (J) came back, with his horn (turned out he played in his school band !). I gave him a "Partial".   I never heard back from any of these Scouts, partials or not.  I hope they found a MBC that held them to the standard.... 

[TAHAWK]

I find it hard to believe that boys, at least,  no longer like to play games.  BSA abandoned Scouting the game decades ago.

 

 

[HICO_Eagle]

 

15 hours ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

HICO, you are fighting physiology there...the point is, that part of the brain isn't done growing in yet...they do not have the physical structures needed for that kind of "adult" thinking.  But, what we can do, is train them in the processes and form the habits of planning, forecasting, and leading.

I'm going to disagree with the premise that the fact the brain is still growing means they don't have the physical structures necessary to start thinking like adults.  If we want youth to start thinking like adults, we have to start treating them like adults.  Yes, you make allowances for their age and inexperience but you don't coddle them.  They aren't infants.  Heck, the term "young adult" USED to refer to this particular age group (as opposed to 18-25 year olds) -- and I think still does in the book publishing world.

 

1 hour ago, ParkMan said:

This is in many ways the question that we are all struggling to answer.

And in this I think we see that even millennials are looking around for an answer.  I'm also reminded that we are not even really marketing to millennials any more - we're targeting Gen-Z and increasingly Gen-A youth.  

 

I think it would be a mistake for us to infer this.  The risk of death is certainly lower today.  However, the challenges to succeed are as great as they've been.  The skills kids have evolved for certain, but that doesn't mean that there are fewer skills needed.  If I look at my profession, we are as far from a hands on profession as you can get.  But, the skills needed by our young adults are high.  Further, the skills that are most needed are the same as they have always been - a sense of drive, confidence, resourcefulness, problem solving, team work, willingness to try, willingness to take risk.  There are the kind of skills that Scouting excels at helping a youth develop.  

The outdoors is our game and it's a good one.  Getting kids outdoors is a great way for them to adventure, have fun, and build skills.  Perhaps in BP's day those skills were part of the purpose as they could keep you from dying.  But today, those outdoor skils are less necessary.  However, the other skills that Scouting excels at developing are indeed needed.  

 

One of the reasons I said that the skills needed in years past were at least as great as today is that the challenges kids face today are ones of convenience or desire or entertainment, not literal survival like in the years I cited.  Having to do something in order to ensure you eat or live for tomorrow tends to force concentration in a way that deciding whether to use TikTok or Instagram or Snapchat don't.

 

2 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

My point is that going back to some "golden age" (Pick a date here. 1960?) and replicating that program won't work because that was a program for a different time.

You literally cannot (legally) do some of the things that were permitted in 1960.

In other words, if you simply took the Fifth Edition of the Scoutmaster's Handbook (1960) and the Sixth Edition of Boy Scout Handbook (also 1960) and said "do this" it wouldn't work.

We aren't the nation we were in 1960. Offering up that 1960 program today would not work.

I am NOT saying to resurrect the exact program of the 1950s and 1960s.  I don't want to teach Scouts to chop off living tree branches to build their wilderness beds.  However, teaching them self-reliance and skills for dealing with the outdoors and each other will go further than all the touchy-feely SJW emotionalism that they're being indoctrinated with today.  The wilderness skills aren't just to enjoy the outdoors, it's to teach them to plan and think without relying on a smartphone or tablet to tell them exactly what to do.  My experience has been that youth generally enjoy being able to do things themselves and realizing they are capable of doing more than they thought.  THAT is exactly what the Patrol Method is all about (IMO).

 

30 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

4-H made a big push in STEM programming and grew by a couple of million.  It has been very successful and is meeting a large demand for STEM activities.  Both youth and their parents want more STEM programs.

11 hours ago, yknot said:

Those are exactly the kinds of questions BSA needs to be asking and researching. I would say 4H has survived because it hasn't been afraid to change and because it has remained relevant to an evolving youth market. It's much more elastic. You can say the same of youth sports and other youth organizations. BSA is pretty moribund.

13 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

4-H was in freefall for years, starting in 1974 when it peaked at 7.4 million. It dropped to around 5.5 million by the 1990s but is back up to 6 million or so now. Why did they come back (or at least remain stable) while BSA dropped like a stone?

BSA has had STEM merit badges for decades and has even updated the qualifications to keep up with technology.  I got the computer merit badge nearly 40 years ago.  I was a registered counselor for it until my retirement from Scouting 4 years ago.  One factor you all are missing is that Scouting has had a target on its back for decades from various factions of society.  4-H has never been targeted that way (to my knowledge).  This wasn't a factor in the first 2 crises the OP mentioned but it has been an ever-growing factor in the third crisis -- and it's been given a boost recently by the way social media, the entertainment industry, "journalism", "education", etc. have dealt more in influence (particularly in social trends) than in actually connecting, entertaining, or informing.

BSA can't fight all of that by itself but it doesn't need to.  My contention is that the older program of teaching youth self-reliance, enjoyment of the outdoors, planning, leadership, etc. will do more than kowtowing to the social activists.  At the very least, it could have stanched the loss of members from the politically correct changes made or led by Robert Gates and Randall Stephenson.  Why is it we can teach triage techniques like "stop the blood loss" in First Aid (well, we stopped being able to teach the use of tourniquets in the FA merit badge but we still taught the concept of dealing with the most dangerous conditions like blood loss first) but National takes policy steps to INCREASE the loss of critical resources in order to appease adult political activists?

I would really like a continuation of the OP's essay but IMO Scouting will not get past this latest crisis unless or until it is willing to ditch the top-level leadership that sacrifices membership and resources to political activism and prioritizes PhDs over real concrete field experience in shaping the program.

[vol_scouter]

21 minutes ago, yknot said:

A lot of our discussion on this thread and elsewhere on this forum is on what we all think should or should not happen with scouting. A common comment is that today's kids "need" scouting. However much many people here may believe that, I'm not sure that that is a clarion call to youth.  I think we need to find out what kids and their families want or need from an organization like scouting. I wish we had some real, non BSA (meaning objective) data on why kids join, don't join, or leave. I know we all try to get information and feedback out of scouts whether in BORs or in trying to recruit around town but it's not enough. I also think when people know you are involved in scouting they don't always tell the truth because they don't want to offend you. I know I often hear one thing when I ask a kid or a parent why they are dropping out or not joining, but my sons often hear something else when they talk amongst themselves. 

Good point yknot.  Such a study must include those who never signed up for a Scouting program but were aware of it; those who were members only for a meeting or two; and those who were longer term members but left early (before aging out or reaching a top rank such as Eagle, Summit, or Quartermaster).  The youth in those groups often have inaccurate contact.  It would be especially helpful to survey them immediately after they leave and at 12 months but the local council and national do not know that they have left until the next recharter.  Only national has the information at all.  Such a study would be very costly (millions to do it correctly with scientifically grounded questions and independent researchers at a university) and needs to go on for several years.  That is why it has not been done as there is awareness of the need for such a study.

Life has always been complex but youth of today have a data rich environment that requires the ability to evaluate the quality of the data and to analyze it.  So we have traded manual labor for more challenging intellectual tasks.

It is not popular on these forums but youth want to explore their world which today is STEM.  Combining STEM into an active outdoor program can be a very attractive proposition.  Otherwise, few of the program skills learned in Scouting will ever be used in everyday life.  The resilience, grit, character and leadership are applicable but are not things that attract youth.