Scouting's Real Crisis Is Not Marketing. It Is Decades of Neglect.(untendedfire.org) |
Scouting's Real Crisis Is Not Marketing. It Is Decades of Neglect.(untendedfire.org) |
I don't think the product sucked at all I think the packaging of that product was terrible. My father took me to a scout meeting when I was 13. Afterwards, he asked if I was interested. I said no - they really come across as Nazi Youth combined with religious fanaticism, and neither appeals to me.
I was sad because the product is truly awesome.
There is some good evidence by the way that the LDS leadership got wind of the abuse compensation claims before they became prominent, which is why they disaffiliated. It may also be cost cutting, because the Mormon church is providing less and less money for activities of all sorts.
The spring membership numbers reveal this. Mid-spring is when the lapsed members from the prior year finally get dropped. Spring 2020 was before the pandemic had any real effect on membership (main recruiting is in the fall), so that is when LDS's withdrawal became apparent.
Then spring 2021 is when we see drops and poor recruiting during the pandemic.
Since then, membership has been largely flat, possibly declining modestly (hard to read precisely).
A kind of interesting statement. I dont know if i agree. I think it is a positive thing to have children from different age groups learn from each other. Obviously it shouldn't devolve into just babysitting, but the idea of mixed ages learning together doesn't seem inherently bad.
the pedophile in the Scoutmaster.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/boy-scouts-america-have...
Why would any responsible parent put their child in such danger.
In the USA, the Mormon church disaffiliated their programme from them a few years ago and that was a big blow to them too since a lot of LDS kids were members.
It is not rage bait. It's good-faith commentary on how a movement has become lost.
I went to a scouting event about a year ago and honestly none of the leadership was inspiring in any way. Timid communication, lack of eye contact, pudgy physique, unkempt appearance.
Look I'm not trying to bash anyone, but am I supposed to tell my kid to look up to these folks? There's no way.
Well, as a german and history conscious person I think the acronym could also be taken in a completely different way.
To them, SA = sexual assault.
Today's reality is that 90% of BSA's high schoolers are stuck in its middle-school program. They aren't getting age-level programming.
BSA has never strongly denied this. Instead, it acts as if handing the reins of its middle-school program to high schoolers constitutes age-level programming for high schoolers. It does not.
It even further muddies the water, recommending mixed-age patrols. Yes, for real, your freshly crossed-over 10 year old is supposed to be in the same patrol as a 17 yo high-school senior. That is weird. But BSA thinks it's appropriate.
To be clear, I think cross-age-band interactions can have value, but they must be optional, and they must never displace age-level programming. I have separately proposed a new position called Guide. It is a position of responsibility where any youth may elect to help with any younger program. This is a service role, not supervision, not displacing younger youth from owning their program. This replaces Den Chief, Instructor, Junior Asst. Scoutmaster, and Troop Guide.
But importantly, and to reemphasize, Guide must be OPTIONAL. Scouting in no way depends on cross-age-band interactions. They are a value add when they work well. But the BSA view on these interactions resembles a fetish and lacks a rational basis.
it's not. the problem is that the teenagers are not given any real authority that would be appropriate for their age. but then on their 18th birthday they suddenly become assistant scoutmasters with the expectation of real authority that comes with that title. so they become leaders simply because of their age, and not by merit or experience. in germany a patrol is a self functioning unit with their own meeting times or spaces. a patrol leader is someone who has been shown to be mature and patrols are able to plan and execute their own events and trips without an adult needing to be present. in the US that rarely happens. that's not just a BSA problem though, it is a problem of american culture in general. anyone under the age of 18 is treated like a child.
1) The BSA national organization sized itself in the 1970s based on the idea that membership would continue to increase forever. The national organization is grossly oversized relative to the needs of the troops. The result is that the national organizations needs are at odds with the troops needs. The national organization is primarily focused on funding itself, including its debt, which creates a net burden for troops. 2) This net burden manifests itself in multiple ways at the troop level including using troops for fund raising efforts for the national organization where little if any of the funds make it back to the troop, increasingly irrelevant mandatory merit badge requirements to appease national donors who want to make their mark (reducing scout choices) and increasingly expensive costs for camps and equipment. 3) Lack of a solid development program for Scoutmasters. Few men in corporate America truly know how to manage or lead anymore. This rot started in the 1970s when computer programs replaced middle management and operations was largely outsourced. Outdoor skills have eroded as the population became more urbanized. Scoutmasters can’t teach what they don’t know and the national organization hasn’t filled that gap. For example compare BSA with NOLS for quality of their skills training. 4) Without a strong selection and development program for scoutmasters there is no prestige. Corporate America’s doesn’t see it as a place to develop leadership from but a distraction. That means that the people the scouting organization can draw from are the very, very good and the very, very bad. 5) Sexual abuse is a significant problem for any youth development organization and that fact was ignored by the BSA for way too long. The majority of perpetrators are men. As an organization with a declining pool of volunteers to draw adult leadership from the ratio of abusers who volunteer is going to be uncomfortably high. Courts and the court of public opinion have shown that there is no limit to the liability for this type of behavior. This is a strong signal that American’s simply do not want youth programs where this kind of thing can happen. 6) Being an adult leader of a youth organization comes with breathtakingly high amount of personal liability. Simply moving a car full of youth from one place to another risks financial devastation. The BSA does little to nothing to mitigate that risk and the only other way to mitigate that is through 1:1 youth to parent involvement where children are under direct, parental supervision at all times. This is antithetical to a youth lead program like the BSA.
As for sexual abuse, the scouts have very good programs to stop it. The past is not the reality today. Comments like yours probably are the reality of public opinion. However, they are not the reality of scouting today.
It's hard to learn of problems with something we deeply invested in. I've been there. It took me years to work through this struggle and come to these positions.
But I find there's an excellent case that BSA can do much better. And it must, or it's going to collapse within 10 years.
The good thing is "do better" is right in front of us. It means catching up with international peers, adopting lessons learned from and norms in our own society, and eliminating irrational deviations from longstanding notions of what Scouting is.
The BSA settlement over sexual abuse allocations was $2.46B for claims going back to the 1970s. No matter how good the program to prevent abuse today, this generation of controls will be judged against the standards of 2070s. This makes any asset heavy youth program financially untenable.
Personally I think scouting, done right, is a beautiful thing but I don’t see how the program survives or how any similar volunteer program would she able to survive long term.
Many times, the high schooler wants to do different things than the 6th grader. And even when they do the same activity, approaches will be different.
The shifting of religious practice in the US impacted scouting as well. Mainline Protestantism and Catholic Churches are on the decline - that’s the backbone. In the Catholic environment I grew up in, Boy Scouts kept kids engaged after communion with the parish.
The other issue with the model is that the local organization leadership reflected the old model. (ie. It’s a bunch of white dudes) The most traditional, growing communities who would be attracted to scouting with Catholic and Episcopal communities are Hispanic, Filipino and in my area Indian.
It is sad. I was involved from age 7-14 (when we moved) and loved it. But institutions only survive when they can grow themselves.
My time as a Boy Scout in Maine was life changing. It was not just about activities and skills (although there were many), it’s clear that the leaders of that Troop saw Scouting as a kind of secular education in ethics and community. They made the various Scouting accomplishments (ranks, merit badges) feel like milestones along a path of self improvement. It felt important.
When my family left Maine, the local Troop was weird (the Hitler Youth comment by the earlier poster tracks) and activities consisted of playing checkers in a church basement. In particular, peer bullying of younger/new kids was routine. I lost interest at that point and stopped going.
It’s been difficult to follow news of Scouting’s decline for me, because I have seen how positive it CAN be. But perhaps local Troops like this are rare.
Sorry you bumped into a troop that really sucked. I don't know if a different one would have suited you better.
You are confirming the statement. They are both badly neglected.
Are you going to expand on this at all? What is the value in Scouts being male-only?
I have heard that the LDS church got wind of abuse claims within scouting before they hit the mainstream. They have their own abuse scandals just now so probably didn't want to fight that war on two fronts. Either that or cost cutting, which is a major feature of modern Mormonism, except where temple construction is concerned.
Scouting hasn't taken off in Mormon churches much outside the USA by the way. Not really in the UK.
So I think the value comes from having a male-only space where boys can learn to be men. This is especially true of young men in the throes of puberty where young women are such a huge distraction they cannot even _think straight_. I know this because I got to experience this _first hand_ and it took me many many MANY more years than it would have to integrate my feelings for women into my being or psyche or whatever the word is.
For the record I am neither Mormon, nor religious. In fact I wildly far to the left by most assessments. Admittedly I don't fit neatly into other people's labels.
What is the value in all programs being mixed gender?
Do they? That suggests not only that there's one right way to be a man/woman, and that you'll need to learn it from your peers and not just your parents.
I do think there's a point to gender-segregated spaces for kids, but that is because the social dynamics are different. There are some ways a boy can relax when there's only other boys around, and same for girls, and that's probably good for mental health. But you're still a man/woman even if you didn't get that chance and went through your whole childhood worrying what the opposite sex thought of you.
to learn that both genders are normal people and have some common and some diverse interest and capacities. to learn to respect each other and to collaborate. to avoid turning the other gender into a mysterious unknown.
there is room for gender segregated spaces. but it doesn't have to be at the organization level. you could have boys only and girls only patrols.
i also disagree that men need to be by themselves in order to learn to be men. the most important quality of a man is to be able to treat women with respect. and see them as their equal, not as something lesser. that can only happen in mixed spaces.
gender specific spaces are good for dealing with certain experiences, such as puberty, but beyond that y experience is that male only spaces are a breeding ground for toxic masculinity.
i also reject the idea that boys can't think straight when the see a woman. that only happens when those boys don't have enough contact with women and are not used to them and if they had bad role models (so blame their parents). if that was a serious issue all schools would be gender segregated everywhere. the whole idea that boys can't control themselves is insulting. it's perpetuated by an archaic view of gender differences. and in fact telling boys that they don't have themselves under control is only making them feel more helpless than they really are.
Children are exposed to plenty of gender-mixed spaces, from school to most families in the first place, and no one is suggesting doing away with that.
I don't agree that men "can't think straight" when women are around (or vice versa) but of course as a teen or even as an adult, you need to consider how the opposite sex sees you, what "signals" you send, or you will almost certainly be unhappy for it. When we call it "the male gaze" I think you see why it might be nice to have a break from it, but women judge men's masculine qualities/conformance too.
I think it's more insulting to suggest men can't be trusted to be left alone with each other or they'll become toxic.
yes and no. scouting is a unique activity. very different from school and other spaces. the things you learn in scouting are not what you learn in school, and therefore it matters that kids experience the other gender in the scouting context too. boys need to see that girls have the same scouting skills. just like it matters that girls can take a car mechanic class in high school, and boys can take a class on homemaking and learn sowing and other things generally seen as girl activities. just being together in school is not enough if the activities are not also shared. scouting can make a big difference here because it offers a broad range of activities that both genders can participate in.
as a teen or even as an adult, you need to consider how the opposite sex sees you, what "signals" you send, or you will almost certainly be unhappy for it
disagree. this is a cultural problem that we need to get rid of. way to much focus is put on how we are seen by others. i'd want to claim that this is a distinct american problem, but it happens elsewhere too, except in most other places it is not normalized. we teach children to ignore it and not give in to the idea that they should pay attention to what the other gender thinks of them.
I think it's more insulting to suggest men can't be trusted to be left alone with each other or they'll become toxic.
fair, that was a bit exaggerated. but it's not far from the truth. that men change their behavior when women are present is documented. it is a known workplace issue. it's a risk in boys groups in that individual boys that learn this behavior from elsewhere (from home for example) tend to be dominating (because it is a dominating behavior) and thus strongly influence the behavior of the group as a whole if not put in check.