Is Scouting's principles influenced by the numbers?

[tjhammer]

(This is an off-shoot of another thread.)

 

Ask any district executive to honestly explain "Critical Achievements" to you... that's the checklist of their job performance and the sole basis upon which they are evaluated for promotion. Ask them to show you ONE component to Critical Achievements that measures their contribution to program... it's not really there. BSA professionals excel based on three things above all else: did you meet or exceed your fundraising goals (which are an increase over last years), did you increase the number of new units, and did you increase the number of registered members. Those three things, the infamous M&Ms (Money and Membership) dominate professional Scouting from the entry level of field service. True enough, measuring M&Ms is much easier than measuring a pros contribution to Scouting program.

 

Now, the standard response from professionals is that their real contribution to the program of Scouting is to "put the boy into Scouting so that others can put Scouting into the boy" (they learn that at PDL training, catchy). And I suppose that would be a good thing. But the problem is this: it's usually not the pros alone that start new units and recruit new members; and a HUGE percent of the money raised by the pros pays for the bureaucracy of paying to have pros.

 

Now, before you all come running to the defense of your local DE, let me say that none of this is intended to be an indictment or attack on specific professional Scouters, but rather an indictment of the system. We all know an awful lot of DEs that are very, very involved in the program of Scouting... they spend time planning Camporees, they hang out with local units, the run Day Camps and Advise OA lodges... but ask them how much of that contribution to the program of Scouting they're getting professional credit for in their Critical Achievements... the answer is not much.

 

If you're looking for the explanation of why Scouting is influenced by numbers (even at the highest levels of the organization), you need look no further that the Critical Achievements philosophy at the lowest levels of Scouting.

 

[Bob White]

Tjhammer,

 

I' apologize I don't know your scouting background back it I can say it isn't real strong when it comes to proper district operations or professional scouting.

 

To start with it's 3 M's, money, manower, and membership, and even that terminology is outdated.

 

Do they do those things? yes, somebody better? i know our District Executives do. Thank goodness to because most of us don't have the time or training to do that.

 

You make it sound like their goals are secret? Maybe in your District, but I have been a district volunteer since 1980 and I know each year what the goals are. Are they always an increase over the year before? Well Duh! Aren't yours? Do you plan for your income to DECREASE? Do you hope to spend LESS money on family activities? Do you hope to have FEWER scouts in your unit? As a person how supports the progream do want LESS organizations chartering scout units?

 

Of course they increase each year. If you aren't moving forward then your sliding backward.

 

By the way if the majority of your council's budget goes to supporting the professional staff, rather than unit service, blame the volunteers on the finance committee.

 

Are there professionals that don't earn their pay? Sure. But read some of the other strings, there are leaders who aren't worth the money they get.

 

We need professional scouting to keep this organization growing.

 

You seem to see conspiracy around every scouting corner. It's just not there, I looked.

 

I ask you to sight one other youth organization as strong and active as the BSA. Are we perfect? No. Are we good at what we do? WE ARE THE BEST.

 

Bob White

[k9gold-scout]

I dont think the few thousand paid scout excutives run the program rather the several million adults (like you and me) who spend their money and give their time for the next generation of scout leaders are the ones who run the program. If the government passed a law saying there could be no more paid adults, scouting would not stop. The program is a reflection to the people in it.

[evmori]

Part of the professional Scouters compensation is tied to numbers. So are the numbers more important to them? Yes. Our job as volunteers is to present a good program to our individual units regardless of the numbers. If we loose site of that, then the program goes in the dumper.

 

My Troop is going camping this weekend. I had planned new leader induction ceremonies. There is only one new elected PL. The newley elected SPL has a camp staff meeting & the newly elected ASPL has a band festival. Out of 17 in my Troop, only 5 are going. Still, we are camping this weekend.

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

[tjhammer]

I don't know your scouting background back it I can say it isn't real strong when it comes to proper district operations or professional scouting.

 

To start with it's 3 M's, money, manpower, and membership, and even that terminology is outdated.Bob, the terminology may be dated (and there's good reason to phase it out), but the principles still permeate Critical Achievements.

 

I'm sure you're referring to the illustrious Boypower, Manpower programs of the 1970s. You are correct, that's where the motivation to focus on numbers really began, but it didn't end when that campaign became dated. There were a lot of bad ideas to come from the Boypower, Manpower days, and unfortunately many of those ideas are still lingering. Point in fact, all of the older Scout professionals that now serve in the higher ranks of regional and national Scouting were young pros in the 1970s, and got their entire basis for what makes a successful pro from the training and indoctrination they received back then. Slowly, those people are retiring from the organization, but the mentality remains.

 

This was not intended to become a "bashing on the pro Scouters" thread, and I hope all will read the first thread to understand how the discussion has evolved to its current stage. The question that was originally posed was how it's possible that Scouting principles are driven by numbers. You're all correct when you say that you don't see that much in your local troop program, because it has very little to do with local troop program.

 

Bob, I saw in another post you made that you invoked the name of Bill Hillcourt and his insistence that Scouting was a Movement, not an Organization. I couldn't possibly agree more, and if you note I often refer to the Movement of Scouting in my posts. The Movement of Scouting is worldwide, spans the generations and exists on so many levels. The Movement of Scouting is mostly what you practice and participate in with your troop. However, there is also an "organization"... that organization is headquartered in Irving, TX and has 327 councils, and is not always synonymous with the Movement. Whenever I disagree with Scouting (which at present I only have one disagreement, and everyone on this board knows what that is), I'm really only taking issue with the "organization" of Scouting, which in this particular case bears little resemblance to the "Movement".

 

Numbers don't influence the Movement of Scouting one bit. Numbers influence the Organization of Scouting completely.(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

[Bob White]

TJ,

 

You completely leapfrog over the 3 middle layers made up of tens of thousands of volunteers who make up District, Council, and National, support committees.

 

We are the ones who work with the professional staff to set the 3M goals and we hire those professionals to help achieve those goals. The "organization" is US not THEM. The relationship is symbiotic. Scout units could not exist without the scouting "organization" and without units there would be no reason for the "organization" to exist.

 

As I said before, your comments on the operation of scouting beyond the unit level show a very shallow understanding of the structure and function of the "organization".

 

Bob White

[tjhammer]

Paraphrase: The ORGANIZATION and the MOVEMENT are one in the sameI couldn't disagree more with this thought. The BSA organization, with it's headquarters, it's 6,000 professionals, its 327 councils and field service staff could all disappear tomorrow, and Scouting would live on in your troop, Bob. True, it would be chaos nationally, but the great game of Scouting created by B-P doesn't take much support to be successful in a neighborhood.

 

Bob, I'm sorry you feel my understandings of the inner mechanisms of the BSA are shallow... I assure you they are anything but. I know how things are suppose to work, and I also know how they really work. I don't ignore the role of volunteers in Scouting, and celebrate the contributions made by us volunteers.

 

The fact of the matter is the BSA is the only member of the World Organization of Scout Movements that has a professional Scouting infrastructure like we do (that's one out of 147 countries). In fact, you'll find many quotes from B-P criticizing the BSA's emphasis on professional Scouting and he even said late in life that his distaste for the "organizational traits" of how structured the BSA was becoming had a lot to do with why he didn't visit the USA as often. Now, some would say (and I'm not sure I would disagree) that the reason the BSA is so structured, successful and constitute roughly 20% of the 16 million member worldwide WOSM is precisely because of our professional structure. It is certainly true that BSA beat out Wood Craft and many other competing programs in the early days because of our professional structure. It is also true that the United Way may not have every come to be (started by BSA and YMCA) if it were not for the BSA and our professionals. So I'm not against professional Scouters, I just think we do a poor job of measuring and rewarding their real contributions to the organization.

 

It was B-P's opinion, and my own, that professional Scouters are to be utilitarian only... essentially clerical and support staff for the volunteers that lead the organization. I suspect that you may even agree with that sentiment a bit, as your suggestions of how the system works seems to embrace an idealistic, symbiotic relationship like this. In reality, though, that's not entirely how the BSA actually functions.

 

Your suggestion that volunteers run the National program is also naive. While it is true that the National Executive Board and sub-committees are comprised of volunteers, it is also true that the vast majority of those folks are on those committees because of their position in life (money, successful business, etc), and not necessarily because they know much about Scouting in the field. Many of you already recognize this happens at the local council level sometimes, where council executive board members (while genuine and good hearted and entirely necessary) can be extremely insulated from the actual program of the units. This is not a blanket statement, but it is a common fact. And at the national executive board level, I would be so bold as to suggest that at least 75% (if not much higher) of the members have not seen the inside of a tent or worked with an SPL in decades, if at all. So to suggest that the folks "running" this program are just like you and me is far from true.

 

Bob, the whole point of this tread was to discuss whether Scouting -- thats the organization of Scouting that currently has this ban on letting avowed gay kids and adults be members (not a WOSM policy, to be sure) -- whether that organizations principles are swayed by numbers, like money and membership. To accept the plausibility of this fact, you have to acknowledge that YOU (Bob) are not the same as THEM (BSA, Inc.). BSA, Inc. is all about the numbers... that organization had a $57 million operating surplus in 1997 (the last year that their tax returns were actually made public, and yes, that's "operating surplus" not endowment income) and spends hundreds of millions to support a professional staff whos top Chief Executive was quoted as eseentially saying the BSA would have to reconsider its principles if the membership numbers were really impacted. It's the same "organization" that's affirming that policy under the threat of one single Church that has said it would abandon Scouting.

 

Come on, does much if this sound like it has to do with the Movement of Scouting that you share in your troop?

 

[Bob White]

Tj,

Let's look at some of the things you wrote last.

 

TJ "Paraphrase: The ORGANIZATION and the MOVEMENT are one in the same"

 

Bob; Paraphrase nothing, fantasy is more like it, nothing along that line was said. I said that the people beyond the unit level that hire and set the goals of the professional staff are volunteers on the District, Council and National committees. That the "organization" you refer to is made of volunteers not some manipulative professional staff.

 

TJ "The BSA organization, with it's headquarters, it's 6,000 professionals, its 327 councils and field service staff could all disappear tomorrow, and Scouting would live on in your troop"

 

Bob: Really, who is going operate the camps, publish the handbooks, do the studies to keep current with the socialogical changes in youth that determine advancement changes, Where will the youth recognitions come from, who will train the thousands of leaders who come after us. who will keep our records, and all the other services done by volunteers and professionals you and a couple buddies?

 

6,000 professionals? We have nearly that many volunteers just in our council and we are a small council.

 

TJ "The fact of the matter is the BSA is the only member of the World Organization of Scout Movements that has a professional Scouting infrastructure like we do (that's one out of 147 countries)."

 

Bob: We are also the largest scouting program in the world, we finance many of the scouting programs in other countries, we are have the most camps and facilities. We have the best trained leaders, We have Chartered organizations where scout units last for decades, no one else runs a program on the scale and scope as the BSA.

 

And by the way not only are we different from every else, but nearly everyone else is different from everyone else. Australian scouting is different from Norway Scouting is differet form Japan scouting is different from Italian scouting. So what's your point?

 

 

TJ: And at the national executive board level, I would be so bold as to suggest that at least 75% (if not much higher) of the members have not seen the inside of a tent or worked with an SPL in decades"

 

Bob: So when was the last time you did their job that you expect them to be doing yours?

 

TJ "Bob, the whole point of this tread was to discuss whether Scouting -- thats the organization of Scouting that currently has this ban on letting avowed gay kids and adults be members"

 

Bob: Really, I looked at your opening post and it says nothing about any of that. You talk exclusively about the pro staff, their goals and money.

 

TJ: "Chief Executive was quoted as eseentially saying the BSA would have to reconsider its principles if the membership numbers were really impacted. It's the same "organization" that's affirming that policy under the threat of one single Church that has said it would abandon Scouting."

 

Bob: "show me proof that that was said, or said in the context you present it.

 

TJ you just don't understand that this organization is run by volunteers and the Pros work for us not vice-a-versa. Your poking at shadows that exist only in a few peoples imagination.

 

 

 

[tjhammer]

Bob, I sense that you're a very good man and a genuine asset to Scouting. I'm going to drop this specific debate with you, because I feel like you can not accept that my criticism of the way we measure a reward professionals, the way we rely on numbers at a national level to influence our principles, and the way that we allow a few of our chartering organizations to impose their values upon us.... I'm sorry, but I feel you can not hear those remarks without believing that it's an attack against you personally and your role in Scouting. And sense I have come to respect your contribution to this forum and your contribution to Scouting, I have no desire to debate this further with you. Can we just agree that we have different perspectives and understandings about how BSA Inc. is run?

[tjhammer]

I will, however, provide the quote, in context, that your requested. I know that he was also quoted saying something pretty similar in a Rotarian magazine I think... but can't find that right now. I note that these rare public remarks were made shortly after the Supreme Court decision, and I suspect that this kind of candor has not been uttered much in public since.National leader of Scouts says group's future is bright Roy Williams says his organization will continue to thrive despite its controversial ban on gays

 

Sunday, September 10, 2000

 

By Janie Har of The Oregonian staff

 

 

The future of the Boy Scouts of America is brighter than ever, said Roy Williams, the nation's top Scouting executive, during a visit to Oregon on Saturday.

 

"We're in the best shape financially we've ever been," Williams said. Nationwide, the organization's 320 councils have a total budget of "almost half a billion dollars."

 

Williams, who was in Oregon to lead the evening ceremony for "Scoutrageous 2000," responded to the controversy surrounding the group ever since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June that the Scouts could legally exclude gays. That decision prompted a number of private companies, public agencies and a dozen United Way chapters nationwide to pull, or to consider pulling, funding and other support from the Scouts.

 

In Oregon, a group of board members of the United Way of the Columbia-Willamette chapter are pushing for a new anti-discrimination policy, which could end the chapter's donations to the Scouts. The chapter contributed $252,000 this year to the Cascade Pacific Council of the Boy Scouts of America.

 

Williams said he doesn't know much about the local United Way debate. But he said the issue of banning gays from Scouts is not new. The Boy Scouts of America has been defending the ban for 20 years, he said. And in that time, the Scouts have continued to thrive.

 

The group has attracted 100,000 new recruits each year for the past several years, Williams said.

 

Not that the controversy has been easy.

 

"Obviously, we're concerned when people call you names and things like that," said Williams, who became chief executive June 1. "That's never pleasant. But I guess it comes with the territory when you take a stand and have a set of values people can take a shot at."

 

The "single most important person" in this controversy is the parent, he said.

 

"They chose Scouting to help their children be better people, and when they start walking away from us, that's the signal to tell us to revisit the issue," he said.

 

"I don't see that on the horizon."It's unfortunate that we aren't following Roy's advice and leaving this decision as close to the parents as possible (local control). And as has been commented in other threads, for him to say that continued participation in Scouting signifies endorsement of this policy is intellectually dishonest and tries to argue that the only signficant value offered by Scouting is a safe haven from gays.

[Bob White]

Tj

Nowhere in that quote does it say scouting would reconsider their principles based on numbers. he says only that we will revisit the topic. The various national committees involved in this topic revisit the subject continually, but they haven't changed their principles.

 

By the way Green Bar Bill was one of the professionals who seem to have such little need for.

 

I get the feeling you are a dedicated unit volunteer. But you really understand very little about how scouting is operated beyond the door of your meeting place. That is not a bad thing, until you start to criticize processes you know so little about. It is not your opinion I take personally. It is the energy wasted and the damage you do with the inaccuracies that you spread that really ties my spleen in a knot.

[tjhammer]

Bob, we'll just have to agree to disagree on which of us really understand how Scouting works. I'm pretty comfortable that my knowledge is "deep and wide", as they say. I've been to national committee meetings and I personally know past members of the national executive board. I do thank you for at least acknowledging that I'm not some radical outside activist trying to destroy Scouting, which has been suggested here by others to my dismay.

 

I can not stress enough however... I have never said that I have little need for professionals or that the organization would benfit from doing away with them (ref: my comment that national may become chaos but Bob's neighborhood Movement would survive). I have said that the way we measure and reward professionals is a problem, and correlates to the way we value numbers over program and principle.

 

And as for Green Bar Bill... he spent his life arguing against the boypower, manpower philosophy of valuing M&Ms (Money and Membership) without valuing Program... I remember a speech he gave at our OA lodge banquet where he said "I've always argued that there are 3 Ms, not two, and the third is "margorP".

 

I finally, for the Chief Scout Exec to say that we would "revist" (call it what you want, it's still indicating that they define morality and principle by the number of folks that support them or at least don't oppose them) is all the signal you need that it boils down to numbers.(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

[Quixote]

tj - just curious, but do you get some kind of job perfomance rating in your profession - is it remotely possible that even some of the things you are rated on in your job relate to numbers?

 

I understand your argument (at least this piece of it) but don't see anwhere in your posts where you suggest an alternative to how professional scouters are to be evaluated.

 

[Bob White]

TJ

We finally agree on something. The importance of a quality program. The problem is you want the professionals involved in it, and it's YOUR job, not theirs.

 

Any us at the unit level who don't think we have a good program, need only to look in the mirror to find who is responsible, not at the professional staff.

[tjhammer]

Bob, I imagine that we agree on more than we disagree on. I hope that doesnt frighten you. Respectfully, I think you've received my critique of BSA Inc. and my desire to see a specific change in policy as somehow a betrayal of Scouting. Quite the contrary, I believe that BSA Inc. is betraying Scouting through this policy, and Im trying to convince you and others of this fact. You and I both strongly oppose the outside pressures of activist groups and courts, and believe that we should have the right to self-determination as an organization.

 

This whole off shoot over professional Scouting is a bit remarkable to me, too. The only reason I brought up Critical Achievements and an over emphasis on count numbers, to the exclusion of other things, was by way of explaining how we became a "numbers driven organization". Trust me, you and I are in complete agreement on the role of a volunteer and their responsibilities to the program. The only real area of disagreement between you and I on that subject has been a differing perspective between how things are suppose to function (of which we agree) and how things actually function (of which we disagree).