The New BSA Strategic Plan

[sherminator505]

These last posts show just how diluted our use of language has become. When I talk about citizenship, I don't refer to merit badges or some requirement in some handbook. I refer to the ability to participate effectively in society by first knowing how to govern one's self according to the ideals and values of Scouting, and then being able to participate effectively in the governance of the home, the community, and the nation.

 

This MAY be a point of emphasis at the unit level, but it certainly doesn't seem to be a priority at National if this strategic plan is any indication. Ever since the BSA declared itself to be a religious organization, its emphasis has shifted in that direction to the exclusion of some other common-sense virtues that are essential to effective citizenship, including patriotism, courage and self-reliance.

 

In response to NJCubScouter:

 

Yes, I'm one of those folks who feels that the BSA lost its way in 1972 and really hasn't recovered, and I don't apologize for that viewpoint. This might seem odd coming from someone who was born in 1970, but I can read and I can see how the changes made in the early 1970's continue to reverberate through the literature from that point hence. We never corrected the structural changes implemented by the "Improved Scouting Program." We revised the Boy Scout requirements to make Tommy Tenderfoot actually go camping to make Eagle so that we could feel better about ourselves. Period.

 

We never fixed Wood Badge; in fact, we took quite a different tack, completely changed the meaning of the course, and made it an "advanced" training course that directly addresses no one but serves to pump out "fake" management theory. We then refashioned ourselves to fit more comfortably within the confines of conservatism and de-emphasized the parts of Scouting that didn't mesh with that re-fashioning. Witness the results.

 

(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

[HICO_Eagle]

Have been away from these forums for a while but just saw this thread. I disagree with a couple of Scout24's ideas:

 

1. BSA's policy regarding homosexuals or atheists isn't even in the top ten reasons I hear for boys who drop out or never get involved in Scouting. Most boys in my experience drop out or don't join because 1) it's work, 2) they're more interested in soccer or football or ..., 3) they've been culturally brainwashed into thinking Scouting is just for geeks. Most don't have any idea what's in the program. For that matter, the DoD survey not only got an insignificant minority of surveys returned but the majority were NOT in favor of repealing DADT, the majority of returns said it wouldn't matter if DADT was repealed.

 

2. Changing the uniform to BDUs just feeds the propaganda mill and really isn't necessary. We didn't wear our uniforms to school 30 years ago either (see aforementioned point about cultural brainwashing). I don't like the Centennial uniform but at least it's comfortable and functional.

 

On the other hand, I agree wholeheartedly that National just doesn't get it. Most of the changes I've seen in the program over the past 20+ years have not (IMNSHO) been positive. Put the outing back in Scouting and make people aware of that -- Scouting should be in the midst of a Renaissance with today's emphasis on the outdoors but we're letting political activists define us in the public perception.

 

"Seven pillars, 26 objectives and 104 specific goals" smacks of people who have been attending too many management seminars from professional educators and consultants instead of actually leading people (including boys) or working with the program.

[Eagle92]

HICO,

 

Welcome Back.

 

I agree: "SCOUTING IS OUTING" as Green Bar Bill has said.

 

If we want to recruit folks and keep them, promise them adventure and keep that promise.

[Knot Head]

*** If we want to recruit folks and keep them, promise them adventure and keep that promise. ***

 

That's it in a nutshell.

[BS-87]

There's a lot of hate on this plan so far as the "corpbabble" goes, but it really is good for what it is. We need to clarify what this is first then and that is a "Strategic Plan" which is something en vogue for the management field right now. Knowing two of the involved SE's as well, I'm not surprised by some of the initiatives.

 

Anyways, the "Strategic Plan" is of no use to anyone who is not management minded. This basically means it's most useful to the professionals. What the Strategic Plan does is give a direction to professionals. What that means is that these initiatives will start showing up on your Council and District Key-3 Agendas, Council and District Committee Agendas, and Professional Staff Meeting Agendas. The process of implementing new programs or initiatives is lengthy because we rely on the professionals to describe the project, and then for the volunteers to take ownership of the project, and then for the volunteers to identify with the project, and then for the volunteers to plan and implement the project.

 

Sharing vision and future planning is a continuous process that usually goes on until the last minute when there actually needs to be implementation, and therefore failure due to lack of planning.

 

So the pros of a Strategic Plan are that it does provide a strong sense of motivation and projects for the professionals and top district leadership. The cons are that visions and strategy cannot be as vaguely defined as they are in the National Strategic Plan 2011-2015 because this results in setting everyone involved up to fail due to difficulty of implementation.

 

Overall, I see one strong goal, and that is to increase membership by a half million. And that may be ambitious but it's something that over 5 years we should be able to do after decades of decline...

[SeattlePioneer]

Regarding Objective 3:

 

1. We have started an innovation grant program to enable any local council, unit, employee, or volunteer

to experiment with ways to more effectively achieve the BSAs designed future. [June 2011]

 

 

 

Interesting idea that proposes to be democratic and allow volunteers to get grants.

 

 

Anyone have any bright ideas they'd like to propose?

[Eagledad]

The Cub program is the number one major cause of losses in the BSA. I have written about the causes since 1995 and most folks who have been on the forum a while can probably recite me. But, Until National gets a hold on the Cub part of the problem, the losses at the rest of the program are hard to grasp. What I mean is if we loose 7 out of 10 boys before they even crossover to the Troops (conservative), how can we really know if there is a problem at the older age levels?

 

Kudu is right that the best way to recruit boy into scouts is to present them with the program eye to eye. In fact, that is what Cubs do and is why they do recruit so well. If we could simply get half the boys we are currently loosing in Cubs to cross over into boy scouts, the troops would explode. Then our next and even harder problem would be holding on to the first year Boy Scouts. Keep those guys and you have them until 14. Then we move to the next problem of keeping the older scouts. But we must first get the Cubs to cross over.

 

On the uniform, I cant say if that is the reason why boys dont join, I honestly dont think so when I think about it. But our troop started using Olive Drab BDU pants and they became a hit in our troop and our district. It was a lot easier for the PLC to get the Troop in full uniform and yes, a few of the guys bragged about wearing their pants to school.

 

Barry

 

[broken]

Ok.... so I've read through this, and everyone complains that Scouting doesn't get the kids outside enough. My question to you is.... What is stopping you from getting the kids outside? Someone mentioned units that just sit in the Church basement, how is that National's fault? National puts the program out there, its up to the volunteers to effectively implement it. If troops are having trouble keeping kids, maybe they should look at how they are implementing that program. You can only blame national for so much folks.

[Thomas54]

 

Well

 

I am late to the party but..

 

The main thing I see for loss in our troop and lack of cross over is that Boy scouts is really two programs; one for middle school kids whose parents want controlled and measured outings and one for high school kids whose parents want more adventure and to hold the scout's interest. Also high school sophomore don't want to hang with six and seventh graders. Further, troop leaders get stretched because the troop program must deliver many different programs, meeting nights must have a program for New scouts, middle scouts and older scouts. That's a lot to ask of a volunteer. Especially with the level of support and training missing at round tables.

 

I would split the program into two; a Middle school program for Tenderfoot through First-class and High school scouts (rising ninth graders)for Star through Eagle. MB would be aged or rank specific. All would be available at the High school level. Some would not be available at the middle school level.

 

De-emphasize leadership in the middle school, pound it in at the high school level. Encourage summer camps for middle schoolers, and High-tier adventure camps for the older scout. That is, two separate programs as dissimilar as cubs from Boy scouts.

 

Use the Cub scout advancement program, a scout never makes first class so what. MB's are not even required prior to the Star rank anyway. A scout comes in at high school, he starts off trying to make Star. He just never gets the first class rank.

 

 

As a final rant I would combine the citizenship badges into one. Most of what is in these MB's is scholarly anyway and is taught already and more thoroughly in our schools. Locally cooking is not taught ion our schools. Home economics as it was called when I was a youth is not even an elective. Shop and tool safety also are not in our local curriculum.

 

Tools are cool. Emphasize in our scouting program what is not taught in schools outdoors, camping tools. You know cool boy stuff.

 

Is this really a Scouting discussion point? From the World Cit. MB.

"2 B. How are changing national interests, democratic values and global economic partnerships affected by the relationships between countries." Yawn!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[moosetracker]

Thomas54 - Your split of the BS program, is sort of what Venturing is.. Problem the BS program has with spliting the program is the younger boys group would definately become a Webeloes III program, with the adults training the boys in the scoutcraft. Then the split older boys program has lost alot of it's leadership responsibilty if they do not have to train the younger boys.. So it is just a good time group, due to this I have never seen any of these crew member even interested in advancement, though I will not discount that they can have a great time there.. If the older boys want that they can go to Venturing..

 

I will though agree with the grouping of the citizenship MB's into one, and one of the required MB's they can bring back to fill one of those empty slots would be the cooking MB, which was something they removed when they messed up the program in the 70's and it was never brought back.

[OldGreyEagle]

the BSA already has a split program in Boy Scout Troops

 

there is the New Scout Patrol

There is the Veteran/Regular Patrol

There is the Venture Patrol

 

Each has in it a specific age range and activitie

[Thomas54]

 

 

"there is the New Scout Patrol

There is the Veteran/Regular Patrol

There is the Venture Patrol "

 

Too many programs for a thin set of volunteers to run on a given Tuesday night.

 

There needs to be clear and distint cut-off between the Webelos III and the Boy Scouts.

 

 

Venturing is a feable program that is not accomplishing what I am suggesting. Eagle can only occur in the Boy scout Highschool program. Just trips such as venturing does not get it.

 

 

[Eagle92]

Thomas,

 

Why are volunteers running program at the troop level? The Scouts should be running the program, not the adults as we should be mentoring and advising. So spreading volunteers thin shouldn't be a concern.

 

Yes the PLC should be planning and teaching, adults getting involved only as needed.

 

What you describe would take away from the younger scouts expereicne of interacting witholer scouts, creating a Web III priogram because there would be no older scouts to plan and execute program.

 

Take away the older scouts working with and leading the younger ones, you take away a vital element of Scouting.

 

 

[OldGreyEagle]

 

You do know that there is no such thing as Webelos III right? It was said in jest, I think,

 

Venturing is a lot more than just trips, there is a difference between Venturing Crews and Venture Patrols

 

This last statement may sound harsh, well , yes it is harsh but its simple. Either the parent's of today's youth are willing to support their children or they are not. Either recruit enough help or drop the program, I do not see National's role as making our lives easier, its supposed to present programs that are youth centered.

 

If we get to a point that we don't have the people to do the job, I am not sure it's BSA National's job, its society's for producing a generation of parents who don't give a rats butt about their progeny.

 

ANd that may be the crux of the matter, forget political positions, are there enough people willing to support a volunteer program for their children or not

[sherminator505]

I see a lot of comments about how Venturing is a feeble program and that having a separate venture patrol is too much for volunteers who are spread thin. Why are structural issues such as these not addressed in the 2011 Strategic Plan?