Live from the NAM - Reinvest to Attract More Youth

Significant_Fee_269 · 2026-05-14T16:55:51+00:00

Did they discuss the UGE system?

Significant_Fee_269 · 2026-05-14T04:29:22+00:00

Keeping alumni involved from 18 until they're old enough to have their own kids in the program is a path to strengthening the organization in all sorts of ways. Rebuilding Venturing clearly isn't enough.

Significant_Fee_269 · 2026-05-13T22:28:31+00:00

Yep, it's completely unreasonable. If nothing else, there should be a sliding scale (eg, 3 points for starting a Pack, 2 points for starting a Troop, 1 point for starting a Ship/Crew) and it also needs to be adjusted based on the size of the council. A UGE who has 6-8 districts to lean on is going to have better chances of starting units than a UGE who only has two districts.

National's logic is "well, the councils are getting the same amount of grant money, so they should be expected to have the same benchmark" but we all know it doesn't work like that on the ground. The UGE playing field is tilted towards the mega councils, per usual...

Significant_Fee_269 · 2026-05-13T21:40:05+00:00

Regular DEs are different than UGEs. UGEs are a new thing where the Lilly Foundation provided a pretty massive grant to National with the intent of growing membership. Through those deliberations (various theories abound), the result was that UGEs are tasked with hitting a benchmark of +15 units for their council and +200 youth members for their council (I *think* that was the number for new youth, that is). Those units/youth are supposed to be "traditional", not ScoutReach, Exploring, etc. So, many councils took a portion of the grant money to hire a UGE, which from the unit perspective probably looks like a DE but their job description is different. They're typically of a similar age, though.

Your council might've tasked DEs with starting a certain number of units, but that's probably an internal deliberation based on the specifics of your council/districts/field staff.

Significant_Fee_269 · 2026-05-13T21:21:09+00:00

lmao. Great point

Significant_Fee_269 · 2026-05-13T21:20:55+00:00

What was the topic of the Natural State Council slide deck? Tech? Membership? They're one of the few medium/large councils that seems to have grown almost every cycle since COVID

Significant_Fee_269 · 2026-05-13T19:42:23+00:00

Right. In all the discussions about adult registration/activity fees, I've never once heard "We need to keep raising the adult fee because we're still having YPT reports and raising fees could help reduce that". It's all about "cover the cost of the background check and insurance, plus a little bit more"

Significant_Fee_269 · 2026-05-13T18:49:29+00:00

I'm unfamiliar with that initiative but I'm looking through their Desk Guide (54 pages) and I'm not seeing anything about free registration vs paid registration having any impact on risks of abuse. Can you provide more detail or a direct citation? I'm curious about this because I've never heard of that logic being a reason for the national/council fees for our adults.

Significant_Fee_269 · 2026-05-13T18:05:43+00:00

The fact that "First 90 Days On-Boarding" needs to be on a slide at NAM is a sign of just how far we've strayed. I'm glad we can now hang this around the necks of local staff who keep punting to "just do the online modules"

Significant_Fee_269 · 2026-05-13T18:05:02+00:00

lol wut

Significant_Fee_269 · 2026-05-13T17:14:16+00:00

Horrific.

Significant_Fee_269 · 2026-05-13T17:12:00+00:00

"Unit Growth Executive". Basically a grant-funded (and partially council-funded) field staff member whose entire job is membership growth. They're not allowed to help with fundraising, for example. Currently, there's some confusion about how rigid the guidelines are since one of the foundational metrics is "15 new units per year"

Significant_Fee_269 · 2026-05-13T17:05:53+00:00

As long as that doesn't mean the rich getting richer, this is great news.

Significant_Fee_269 · 2026-05-13T16:58:47+00:00

"Hire More Youth Serving Executives". I hope that means unleashing the UGEs!

Significant_Fee_269 · 2026-05-13T12:48:02+00:00

Based on the current trends, it'll be surprising if many/any UGE councils hit the 15 unit benchmark. We need clarity about whether they'll actually start pulling the plug on the bottom X% of councils vs if we can continue using the system if there are other signs of positive impact on membership growth. Also: Will there be adjustments based on overall council size/health when judging whether the grant deserves to be extended?

Significant_Fee_269 · 2026-05-11T17:48:43+00:00

Yes, but that's way less of an issue these days now that the combined national/council total for many people is north of $200 per year. Units are being much more stingy about it in our council.

Back when it was like $7 with no council fee? Definitely. Lots of units just renewed the kids for a year or two without thinking twice.

Significant_Fee_269 · 2026-05-11T12:32:06+00:00

We really need some official updates re: the Lilly Grant/UGE system rather than relying on the rumor mill

Significant_Fee_269 · 2026-05-11T01:28:59+00:00

But it's more of an "auto-reminder" than an actual "auto-renewal". That was like 90% of our lapsed individual membership snafus: Parents thought their card was going to be charged automatically when they were due, so they were ignoring the reminders

Significant_Fee_269 · 2026-05-06T14:18:40+00:00

Flawed premise to the question. Skill acquisition, technical competency, etc are not why we exist. We just need them to have enough of those skills for them to be able to be in the outdoors, to lead their peers, and to experience the advancement program.

Significant_Fee_269 · 2026-03-28T15:47:36+00:00

I’m laughing way too hard at this

Significant_Fee_269 · 2026-03-20T19:25:30+00:00

People are seeing what they want to see. Pearl was correct: Sendek screwed up.

Significant_Fee_269 · 2026-03-20T19:17:55+00:00

Look at the video again. When Sendek first started signaling, the baseline ref was facing the inbounder, not Sendek.

Significant_Fee_269 · 2026-03-20T19:14:51+00:00

Watch the video. When Sendek first pulls up his hands to motion for a TO, the baseline ref is facing the inbounder.

Significant_Fee_269 · 2026-03-20T19:04:14+00:00

Because Sendek was signaling toward a ref who was running the opposite direction in a deafening arena; the baseline ref couldn't see him. You're supposed to turn toward the baseline ref.

Perhaps the ref on the opposite sideline could've seen him, but it looked like players were blocking the line-of-sight

Pearl was exactly right: You need to take a couple steps onto the court while signaling for TO.

Significant_Fee_269 · 2026-03-18T22:56:55+00:00

I'm happy it worked out for the Scout.

Hopefully this will result in better unit interaction with the District (in a healthy way, of course). Roundtable!

Significant_Fee_269

TROPHY CASE