Membership, developing a culture of growth... Is national on the right track? Doubtful... See Philmont Training

[Ojoman]

About 40 years late... During my 30 years as a professional I nearly always had membership growth and not only that but balanced growth. Not only balanced but pretty much by age/grade level. Funny thing, no one ever asked me how I accomplished that. Journey to Excellence if pretty much useless... The measure of a unit should be retention of both youth and volunteer leadership. Quality programs result in retention and growth. Unit support, training, quality roundtables, making sure units have the tools to deliver a high quality experience and are meeting the needs and expectations of kids and parents is the only path to meaningful growth. Sadly, I don't really see that in the promo information.

https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10219804925433639&set=a.2473191529196

[yknot]

41 minutes ago, Ojoman said:

About 40 years late... During my 30 years as a professional I nearly always had membership growth and not only that but balanced growth. Not only balanced but pretty much by age/grade level. Funny thing, no one ever asked me how I accomplished that. Journey to Excellence if pretty much useless... The measure of a unit should be retention of both youth and volunteer leadership. Quality programs result in retention and growth. Unit support, training, quality roundtables, making sure units have the tools to deliver a high quality experience and are meeting the needs and expectations of kids and parents is the only path to meaningful growth. Sadly, I don't really see that in the promo information.

https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10219804925433639&set=a.2473191529196

The problem with membership is organizational.

[Eagledad]

I here what you are saying, I also always had balanced growth of both youth and adult membership.

My nature is problem solving areas where performance is lacking. Whether in my job, home, even scouts, I like to evaluate and search to improve performance. And I have done a lot, A LOT, performance evaluation over the years of why the BSA is loosing membership. And it comes down to National changing policies for the purpose of increasing membership. The changes made in the 70's basically shifted adventure part of the program to more focus on advancement. When you look at the policy changes  the since the 70s, many are small, but clear shifts from adventure toward advancement, with the bigger purpose of increasing leadership.

I can go on and on of how changes perpetuated membership decline. But, I will mention just one for now what I believe is near the top of the changes that pushed the membership decline; adding Tigers to the Cub program. This is a complex issue, but in short, Tigers forced adult burnout in the program it made the program so long. A few numbers that I gathered 25 years ago was that less than 25% of families who joined the BSA as Tigers joined a Troop five years later. The most devastating statistic is that 50% of Webelos crossed over to the Troop. That is a huge number. And when I researched why families dropped out after Webelos, the basic answer was the program was boring. A little more research and I found that most Webelos leaders were burned out and didn't provide a fun program. The troop program is completely different and would most likely boost scouts toward fun  again, but once a family wants out, it's hard to change their minds.

If I were put in charge of National, I would change many parts of the program, mostly back to the what made the program successful, but I would start by making the Cub program a 4 year program, maybe even 3.5 years, to starve out adult burnout.

Barry

 

 

[Ojoman]

4 hours ago, Eagledad said:

If I were put in charge of National,

You have some good and valid thoughts. The BSA has tried to mirror the GSA who dropped their age/grade requirements. As BSA traditional membership declined they added Tigers to boost numbers but failed to realize retention as the Cub program was now too long. Then they added Lions and compounded the problem. I would change the program and make the Cubs a 3 year program and then a separate Webelos unit/program for 2 years or closer to 1.5 with crossovers as they are now done in February. Adding girls to the program is a positive as it gives parents a 'one stop shop'. Girls have long wanted to be in the BSA. Sadly we are not properly supporting that aspect of membership. 

 

[Eagledad]

1 hour ago, Ojoman said:

You have some good and valid thoughts. The BSA has tried to mirror the GSA who dropped their age/grade requirements. As BSA traditional membership declined they added Tigers to boost numbers but failed to realize retention as the Cub program was now too long. 

 

The Tiger age Daisies scouts in the GSA are a separate program from the older Brownies. That makes managing the groups much easier with age appropriate activities and materials. The BSA doesn't have to quit recruiting First Graders, just develop a separate program. The could even add pre-school age youth. Trying to plan a Pack Meeting that is fun for both toddlers and near preteen scouts is very challenging.

Barry

[DuctTape]

When an organization's focus is on Quantity; Quality suffers.

When the focus is on Quality; Quantity will also improve. 

 

Just summarizing our esteemed colleagues' aforementioned experiences.

[InquisitiveScouter]

2 minutes ago, DuctTape said:

When an organization's focus is on Quantity; Quality suffers.

When the focus is on Quality; Quantity will also improve. 

 

Just summarizing our esteemed colleagues' aforementioned experiences.

Once again... @DuctTape for National Commissioner!!

[Ojoman]

19 minutes ago, DuctTape said:

When the focus is on Quality; Quantity will also improve. 

The National Office (Ivory Tower) had people who had been out of the district level for many years deciding on what direction to go. In 30 years I was never asked to share my success 'secrets'. Management by objective pretty much became 'the beatings will continue until production improves'. To be fair I did have some fine managers for many of the years I was in the profession but also just as many poor ones, some even incompetent. 

[AwakeEnergyScouter]

On 1/31/2024 at 3:42 PM, Ojoman said:

Adding girls to the program is a positive as it gives parents a 'one stop shop'. Girls have long wanted to be in the BSA. Sadly we are not properly supporting that aspect of membership. 

Honest question - what additional support did you have in mind?

All scouting is local, of course, but looking around I don't really notice anything missing for girls. Our council (Alamo Area) went out with a social media campaign to announce that girls are welcome that included boys saying they thought including girls was good, the pack closest to our house was a participant in the family pack program and so we're all scouting together as normal, and we were explicitly told we were welcome by the leaders and the male scouts never did a thing to imply otherwise. The old Cubmaster has said several times that even though they didn't seek out a family pack per se, he's glad they're in one in retrospect. Just had a conversation with another leader about the importance of learning to lead mixed-gender groups because that's what the real world is like. So, no question that we're welcome.

Now, from this forum I can see that it's likely that there is hostility left somewhere out there, but I personally only see it on the Internet. But that seems to be a people problem, not a program problem.

[Ojoman]

1 hour ago, AwakeEnergyScouter said:

Honest question - what additional support did you have in mind?

First, my council has not really provided the type of support to drive girls to the program. Second, apart from youth protection concerns which should be resolved with training having separate units for girls seems unnecessary and burdensome. Especially when you can share sponsors, leadership, meeting space and even do events and activities together. Few of our troops have established a female troop. Venturing has always been co-ed so why not Troops? Also, opportunities for more social type activities that would be age appropriate for both genders together would be welcome. I'm sure some councils and districts have that but many others are lacking. Personally, working with 'family camps' over the years and seeing how much the female siblings enjoyed the programs I'm just happy to see the BSA moving in the right direction but I think we still have a ways to go. 

 

[AwakeEnergyScouter]

2 hours ago, Ojoman said:

having separate units for girls seems unnecessary and burdensome. Especially when you can share sponsors, leadership, meeting space and even do events and activities together.

Yes, this I agree with. I'm a cub scouter so haven't had to deal with this yet, but yes, it seems quite wasteful and/or muddling the leadership roles. I'm expecting that this will become obvious as this goes on and someone at National will say "this is dumb, let's just all scout together."

It's also possible that what I see right around me will create on the ground pressure in the same direction. We have some tight-knit AOL, Webelos, and Bear dens in our pack that are talking about all picking the same troop to join. One AOL felt very strongly about a particular one, and so all of our AOLs are going to that one. There are intertwined sibling and friendship ties from the current AOLs that would, if they do what they're talking about, lead to a dump of both girls and boys into that troop, which currently doesn't have a girl's troop. I have already been approached to ask if I'd be willing to be Scoutmaster for the female half of the troop the CO has been trying to start, because finding leaders has been the hangup.

So if this all plays out, the cubs that scouted together in Cub Scouts will continue to scout together in Scouts BSA, with a whole glob of adult leaders that believe in everyone scouting together following them to make it possible for them. Emotionally, they're one glob of scouts, no matter what the rules say. And with leaders that want to provide the experience of leading real-life groups - what's that going to look and feel like? Back to point one. Waste or a series of two-person committees with one man and one woman leading. 

You're also right about that if there are councils who aren't getting out there about not just letting people know but also being clear that girls are welcome they're just slacking on recruiting. It's clear from popcorn selling that there are still lots of people who aren't aware that girls and boys scout together in BSA now. We might be hyperaware here on this forum, but the public at large isn't.

Now that I think about it, there is one organizational change I'd like to see - the name of the WOSM NSO in the US. It doesn't make sense, and it's super awkward to imagine the gear with "Boy Scouts of America" in giant font on it on girl scouts. It's awkward enough to stick girls in uniforms that say "Boy Scouts of America". That made my husband very mad actually. Just Scouts of America or Scouts USA, something like that, makes sense.

I get that it would feel bittersweet at best. (Cue the people who are really angry about girls in BSA here.) But long-term... How long are we going to cling to naming ourselves after policies that no longer exist?

Edited February 4 by AwakeEnergyScouter
Fixed typos.

[InquisitiveScouter]

1 hour ago, AwakeEnergyScouter said:

Now that I think about it, there is one organizational change I'd like to see - the name of the WOSM NSO in the US. It doesn't make sense, and it's super awkward to imagine the gear with "Boy Scouts of America" in giant font on it on girl scouts. It's awkward enough to stick girls in uniforms that say "Boy Scouts of America". That made my husband very mad actually. Just Scouts of America or Scouts USA, something like that, makes sense.

I get that it would feel bittersweet at best. (Cue the people who are really angry about girls in BSA here.) But long-term... How long are we going to cling to naming ourselves after policies that no longer exist?

Great idea, but it is all about the money...

Girl Scouts of the USA (part of WAGGS) is simply not going to give up an $800 million dollar revenue stream to either 1) merge with the Boy Scouts of America (part of WOSM) and become one WOSM NSO, or 2) accept "Scouts of America, or Scouts USA"  as a trademark infringement which confuses their business model and target audience (although they lost that lawsuit...)

https://www.wsj.com/video/series/the-economics-of/from-thin-mints-to-tagalongs-how-cookies-fuel-girl-scouts-success/B4839193-1AB9-4CCE-B106-C2BAEE40E912

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/boy-scouts-defeat-girl-scouts-trademark-lawsuit-over-co-ed-scouting-2022-04-07/

https://scoutingwire.org/girl-scouts-of-the-united-states-of-america-gsusa-and-boy-scouts-of-america-bsa-have-entered-into-an-agreement-to-end-trademark-infringement-litigation/#:~:text=July 25%2C 2022-,Girl Scouts of the United States of America (GSUSA) and,respective missions to serve youth.

Finally, although in reality, a "Congressional Charter" doesn't mean squat, BSA clings to this designation as a basis to be the only legitimate Scouting organization for boys in the USA.  (Including the dog and pony show of an annual report to Congress required by the charter.) Changing their name might mean giving up their Congressional Charter, and therefore, some perceived legitimacy to monopolize/dominate the market. 

 

[Eagledad]

1 hour ago, AwakeEnergyScouter said:

Yes, this I agree with. I'm a cub scouter so haven't had to deal with this yet, but yes, it seems quite wasteful and/or muddling the leadership roles. I'm expecting that this will become obvious as this goes on and someone at National will say "this is dumb, let's just all scout together."

Just curious, is there room in your program for units that want to be single-gender? Is it optional?

Barry

[AwakeEnergyScouter]

1 hour ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

Girl Scouts of the USA (part of WAGGS) is simply not going to give up an $800 million dollar revenue stream to either 1) merge with the Boy Scouts of America (part of WOSM) and become one WOSM NSO, or 2) accept "Scouts of America, or Scouts USA"  as a trademark infringement which confuses their business model and target audience (although they lost that lawsuit...)

 

Finally, although in reality, a "Congressional Charter" doesn't mean squat, BSA clings to this designation as a basis to be the only legitimate Scouting organization for boys in the USA.  (Including the dog and pony show of an annual report to Congress required by the charter.) Changing their name might mean giving up their Congressional Charter, and therefore, some perceived legitimacy to monopolize/dominate the market

I'm not a lawyer, but given that they lost the trademark infringement lawsuit I don't see how they could win another as long as 'girl' isn't part of the new name. (E g Girl And Boy Scouts of America.) They might not like it, but girls can be WOSM NSO members and them's the rules. They are assured by the same rules that BSA under any name can't join WAGGGS, because the US MO slot is already taken by them, so I'm not sure what they'd be worried about. If the two organizations did merge in the future, I would expect the new joint organization to be both in WAGGGS and WOSM like most others. Pure pattern guessing on my part, of course.

The Congressional Charter thing is interesting, never heard that. But it's also prima facie incorrect, and presumably National knows that.

[AwakeEnergyScouter]

47 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

Just curious, is there room in your program for units that want to be single-gender? Is it optional?

I'm not really sure what you mean by my program - the Cub Scout Program? Scouterna? For Cub Scouts, single-gender dens are allowed. In Scouterna I don't actually know because who would want that? Hard to imagine. So I'm going to guess that single-gender units are not allowed in Scouterna.