The future of the BSA

[Tron]

19 hours ago, fred8033 said:

It's very important, but even with the training I've seen ... people run the program they've learned from the previous unit leaders or they do what they want.   Training is very important but not a failure root cause.

 

This is a fundamental issue in my view:  the broken connections between packs and troops. 

Directly related, "emphasizing" troop shopping is bad.  If the unit is not a good match, then switch.  Fine.   BUT!  It's bad to have individuals shopping around causing splits and breaks in continuity.  A few big units thrive.  Smaller and medium units hurt.  Worse, long term relationships get damaged as people move for various reasons.   ... In this day and age of driving around and shopping, people are used to going further and looking for the best deal.  IMHO, this is bad for scouting as it moves youth away from their immediate community.

My view is a single unit committee that oversees a program from youngest cubs to oldest scout / explorer is critical.  New parents see where what their scout could achieve.  Youth have older scouts to look up too.   Plus, experienced older scouts could help run some younger programs at times.

 

Yep.  Also bad.

Troop shopping is GREAT if units are running the program instead of doing their own thing. If everyone is running the program the only difference between units would be personality and driving distance to unit meetings.

[Armymutt]

 

On 8/14/2023 at 7:01 AM, Jameson76 said:

 

• Come to camp with your unit and we need you to also help run the camp you also paid to attend

 

I understand the idea behind it - keep things cheaper, but for the Cubs, it is incompatible with G2SS and YP.  When our Pack goes camping, we have 2, maybe 3, registered leaders.  So if one of us goes and runs a station for an hour, the rest of the Pack has to sit at the station in order to comply.  We can't send parents of anyone who is below a Wolf.  Most of our parents lack initiative, otherwise, they'd be wearing a uniform.  Sending them to run a station would result in chaos.

[Armymutt]

On 8/16/2023 at 9:33 AM, AwakeEnergyScouter said:

I don't really know what's going on in Swedish scouting organization- and strategy-wise, but their recruiting video inspires me to get outdoors and seek adventure, too. It's at the top of their "become a scout" page at https://www-scouterna-se.translate.goog/bli-scout/?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp&_x_tr_hist=true that also hits hard on that scouting is exciting outdoor adventure.

Their homepage also leans hard into outdoor adventure: https://www-scouterna-se.translate.goog/?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp&_x_tr_hist=true

And there are queues to join in some places. The pitch to become a leader is partly to get your own kid in faster 😄

Bear Gryllis as Chief Scout in the UK also promises adventure.

Last Child in the Woods is trendy. https://www.amazon.com/Last-Child-Woods-Children-Nature-Deficit/dp/156512605X

IMO it's quite clear that outdoor adventure is what people come to scouts for, so that's what we should deliver. In spades. Ultralight backpacking spades.

 

Sadly, I see two violations of the US Guide to Safe Scouting on the Swedish page.  Maybe if we didn't have a society angling to become rich off court cases, we'd have kids lining up to have fun.  

[AwakeEnergyScouter]

53 minutes ago, Armymutt said:

Maybe if we didn't have a society angling to become rich off court cases, we'd have kids lining up to have fun.  

I know what you mean, but in fairness to the US Americans as individuals, there are multiple legal and political-philosophical system differences that give the lower litigiousness in Sweden.

One obvious one for the case of falling out of a tree is that nobody needs to raise money for the medical bills. This obviates a major reason to sue in the US. Tort claims for injury are compensation for suffering, not costs incurred, and are often ordered by a judge in connection with a criminal case (see below for why that is).

Another is that safety is a strong societal value in Sweden. We've been collectively buckling up in cars since before I was born and it blows my mind that anyone alive in the US today would ever have not worn their seatbelt on purpose, or even worse been in a truck bed while the truck was moving 😱. The value isn't a bubble, it's active risk mitigation. So when all adults are socially expected to effectively reduce risk and will be ostracized if they don't, you need a lot less "GTSS" rules. There's a social regulation mechanism that works pretty well already. (Similarly, the social situation around CSA is very different.)

My scout cannot skate without a hockey helmet. They're always the only kid on the ice with a helmet, because the rink doesn't require them. My scout will also never be one of the people sitting on the ice holding their head in their hands going "oooowwww". (Swedish mom SMH moment every time, ice is hard and falls happen, both 100% predictable.) My car will not go anywhere unless everyone in it is wearing their seatbelts, and nobody goes boating with me without an approved life jacket preferably with a horse collar in case of unconsciousness. (Especially if there will be drinking.) I see that other parents think I'm hard-line on this stuff. (They also think I'm negligent when I let my scout out of my sight, but that's another cultural difference 😂)) I do it anyway because I feel that social support/pressure on those standard safety equipment things. I heard a million reminders from every direction as a kid and so I can't let my own kid use less safety gear than I did, can I?

We also see the role of the government differently, and also have civil law instead of common law. We directly regulate or even criminalize a lot of safety and civil rights issues (because it's the government's job to ensure that every citizen's rights and freedoms are upheld) rather than wait for citizens to indirectly limit them via lawsuits. And since civil law depends a great deal less on precedent than common law, we limit what suing is meant to be for in a way that you can't do as easily in common law. 

Every system has advantages and disadvantages. Lawsuit mania is one of the disadvantages of the US system. No doubt some US Americans are just greedy, but many are given suing as the tool of choice of the system they live in. Can't fault them for using the tool they're pointed to. And you can't really stop the greedy ones without taking away a tool of justice.

[mrjohns2]

4 hours ago, Armymutt said:

So if one of us goes and runs a station for an hour, the rest of the Pack has to sit at the station in order to comply.

I’m confused. Are you mixing no 1 on 1 with 2 present at the activity? 

[1980Scouter]

I just read an article that said Jamboree only had 15,000 attending and lowest attendance ever. If this true? I know National told LC'S to push Jamboree hard.

[Armymutt]

On 9/27/2023 at 4:55 PM, mrjohns2 said:

I’m confused. Are you mixing no 1 on 1 with 2 present at the activity? 

No.  Two deep leadership is two deep leadership, right?  So if we only have two leaders present  for the activity, then we can't send one off to work a station.  We already have violated the female rule.  My daughter (Tiger) went camping last year with no female leaders present.  Just me and the CM and a couple other families.  Since she is always with me, I'm not super concerned, and I'm sure other packs have the same issue.  I know troops do.  

[Jameson76]

10 minutes ago, Armymutt said:

No.  Two deep leadership is two deep leadership, right?  So if we only have two leaders present  for the activity, then we can't send one off to work a station.  We already have violated the female rule.  My daughter (Tiger) went camping last year with no female leaders present.  Just me and the CM and a couple other families.  Since she is always with me, I'm not super concerned, and I'm sure other packs have the same issue.  I know troops do.  

Not actually.  Do not confuse "2-Deep" leadership at an activity with "1 on 1".

The 2-Deep leadership does not mean that 2 leaders will be present at all times around all Scouts (speaking more for Scouts BSA).  It means there are 2 or more leaders at the outing.  4 Scouts go fishing by the lake, all good.  One of the leaders wanders by to say hello, again, no issue, multiple Scouts, no 1 - 1.  Scouts are building fires at the site and a leaders is there, again multiple Scouts and a leader.

Don't overthink

[mrjohns2]

2 hours ago, 1980Scouter said:

I just read an article that said Jamboree only had 15,000 attending and lowest attendance ever. If this true?

Yes. 10,000 participants. 15,000 is including staff. Jamboree really sucked pretty badly compared to past Jamborees. 
 

Examples: no “headline” guests (literal promise that Jack Black was going to be there as part of a team building activity was a literal joke), no arena shows (no gathering of everyone at the jamboree, none), only the smaller climbing area was open at the summit, the canopy tour wasn’t open, and not all zip lines were open. My daughters were like “meh, what can I do here that I can’t do at camp?”  They CAN Wait Until I Go Back. Not interested in future Jamborees. 

[InquisitiveScouter]

2 hours ago, 1980Scouter said:

I just read an article that said Jamboree only had 15,000 attending and lowest attendance ever. If this true? I know National told LC'S to push Jamboree hard.

Yes.  See attendance numbers in the chart.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Scout_jamboree_(Boy_Scouts_of_America)

And how many of those were Scouts from other countries??

 

Edited October 2, 2023 by InquisitiveScouter

[InquisitiveScouter]

1 hour ago, Armymutt said:

No.  Two deep leadership is two deep leadership, right?  So if we only have two leaders present  for the activity, then we can't send one off to work a station.  We already have violated the female rule.  My daughter (Tiger) went camping last year with no female leaders present.  Just me and the CM and a couple other families.  Since she is always with me, I'm not super concerned, and I'm sure other packs have the same issue.  I know troops do.  

@Armymutt,  I understand your logic.  Those two leaders, in spirit, are to be there to supervise their Scouts, and not to be dedicated to some other purpose.

That said, many do not interpret the rule this way.  It is considered "acceptable" for leaders to do other activities while remaining "on the property" where their unit is conducting an event, and not be "ever-present" with their Scouts. (granted, Cub Scouts need a little more supervision than Scouts...)

As in your case, with Cub Scouts, you may not want to flex the rule in that way.  That is totally your prerogative, and I support you 100%. 

 

Edited October 2, 2023 by InquisitiveScouter

[Tron]

Does anyone know what project "Catalyst BSA" is? I've heard of it before, but no one seems to have details. Yesterday I heard it mentioned again and this time in reference to the "new program for scouts in their 20's and 30's" rumor that came out of the national meeting this year. 

[InquisitiveScouter]

2 minutes ago, Tron said:

Does anyone know what project "Catalyst BSA" is? I've heard of it before, but no one seems to have details. Yesterday I heard it mentioned again and this time in reference to the "new program for scouts in their 20's and 30's" rumor that came out of the national meeting this year. 

???

https://www.scoutspirit.org/enhancingscouting/

Can anyone parse out what this Newspeak means??

[InquisitiveScouter]

1 hour ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

???

https://www.scoutspirit.org/enhancingscouting/

Can anyone parse out what this Newspeak means??

This looks like a district or council-level weekend day camp set up for you to bring your Scouts to have them work on requirements instead of you having to construct your own program.

Sort of a "we provide the program, you bring your Scouts" offering. 

Which is just another dilution of Scouting, IMO...

 

[Tron]

1 hour ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

This looks like a district or council-level weekend day camp set up for you to bring your Scouts to have them work on requirements instead of you having to construct your own program.

Sort of a "we provide the program, you bring your Scouts" offering. 

Which is just another dilution of Scouting, IMO...

 

That website is localized and I believe a Massachusetts based program. What I have heard rumblings about is a BSA national wide program called Catalyst BSA which is targeted at "scouts" in their 20s and 30s. Do other countries have adult scouting programs that BSA might have been looking at to extend the program longer/continue to grow membership revenue?