Volunteers? Or, do we need professional Scouters?

[boomerscout]

I pulled this from whiteblaze.net which is a site for App Trail hikers. Ms. Leller, the poster, was replying to a comment that Scouts today are basically incompetent -- don't know how to act, behave, prepare for the wilderness. So, I'm wondering if we should pay our Scoutmasters? Trained as wilderness rangers, SM would be their full-time job; they would run 2 or 3 troops to earn fulltime pay? Here is Ms Leller:

"I just retired from scouting after 15 years as a scout leader, 10 of those as an assistant scoutmaster. I still continue as a backpacking and hiking merit badge counselor.

 

Sadly, I've observed similar situations. But I've also seen some well prepared, well taught groups, as well. Back in April, I stopped and talked to a scout group at the Tye River. They were preparing to climb the Priest as part of a training shakedown for the Grand Canyon. They seemed well prepared, their leaders were experienced, and we talked about their plans for gear shakedowns, physical training sessions, and fundraising etc., which would take the better part of a year before their planned trip to the GC. I was impressed. A few hours later, I happened upon another boy scout troop at Harpers Creek shelter. What a mess! They had just hiked in for the day to "play", according to one of the adults with them. There was trash everywhere. I observed a few of them peeing into the creek. They were heaving rocks, cutting saplings for marshmallow sticks, digging holes near the shelter. I had a foot injury and limped into the shelter area on a hot day. The limp was obvious. I looked and smelled like a backpacker. I thought it was pretty obvious that I would want to sit down somewhere, but the shelter was full of lounging adult and their trash and gear. Boys occupied every spot at the picnic table. When I asked one boy to move over a bit, he actually said to me "I was here first." His friends laughed, and a few echoed his comment. Not that it should matter, but I'm a woman, well old enough to be the mother of any of the boys. I was really irritated by the rudeness. I smiled at the boys and said, "Let's run the Scout Law, my friends." Which seemed to attract the attention of one or two of their adult leaders.

 

"Running the Scout Law" is a decision-making technique taught to scouts. If they have a question about whether or not to do something, or if they want to evaluate a decision made, they simply run down the Scout Law and ask themselves, "If I do/did this, will it be trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent." If they answer NO to any of those points of the Scout Law, then the decision has to be re-worked. In the case of our rude scout who didn't want to give up his seat to a lady/injured hiker, we didn't even get past helpful, let along friendly and courteous. A bit later, I had a private conversation with the scoutmaster. One adult did apologize to me later, saying that he was new to the troop and "had concerns" about the group. The boys did clean up at the end of their stay, and they packed out their trash after I nicely explained to them why it was a bad idea to toss it down the privy.

 

The problem with that group, and with most unruly, unprepared scout groups was with the adults. Scouts are boys, so the responsibility will always fall to the adults who volunteer to lead them. Adult leaders should attend BSA training. One thing that is emphasized in training is the "sandwich principle". If you picture a sandwich made with a bun, the top and bottom of the sandwich should always be Qualified Supervision and Discipline, with the main part of the sandwich being Scouting Safety.

 

Qualified Supervision and Discipline. And therein lies the problem! It's just darn difficult to find qualified adults willing to volunteer and who have a talent for working with young people.

 

It's hard to find good volunteers for anything. Many parents sign their boys up for scouting but don't volunteer to help. Some volunteer, but they aren't qualified. Many times, the boys and the adults have the same level of experience in the woods, which is next to nothing. Some adults are experienced, but they have no talent for dealing with young people. Some are reliving their own days as boy scouts and think they know everything. They may attend training, but they don't actually absorb any information presented to them.

 

In my opinion, that's it in a nutshell. It's hard to find good volunteers who are willing to give up so much of their time, who have the skills and experience, the talent to work with rowdy teenage boys, and the patience to deal with their parents who will not back down from their misinformed opinions. (Ok, the parent thing is my own personal weakness. And if you care to read about one of my parent issues, I posted a thread last year about a trip I organized through SNP for 6 boy scouts.) Since there is a shortage of qualified adults who volunteer with the boys, often any warm body is accepted as a leader. These adults don't know enough, they don't go to training enough or at all, they don't learn, they're tired from a long work week, they consider their weekend camping trips with the scouts to be their vacation, etc. etc.

 

In short, it's the responsibility of the adults. The BSA offers excellent training, but its effectiveness is hit or miss. In recent years, the BSA has begun tightening up on the training requirements. Some councils are now requiring that ALL adults go to training. That's fine, but at the current time, attendance is all that's required. There is no testing following the training. There are new, stricter requirements for the health and conditioning of leaders. If you plan a 100-mile hike with teenage boys, you better be able to keep up with them! There is also a new requirement that at least one adult in a group doing backcountry activities has to be certified in wilderness first aid. Great! It's improving, but there is a long way to go. There is no scout leader police, per se. No one goes out and checks up on what a troop actually does in the woods. But you and I can always speak up. Pull an adult leader aside and talk to him/her about what's going on. Sometimes the information is received well. Sometimes not. If you want to go further, find out their troop number, council and district. You can always call one of the paid BSA staff people at council offices and talk to them about dangerous situations you've seen. And, if you are so inclined, you can volunteer. That's the best way to help the situation.

 

It's not perfect, but scouting does great things for lots of kids. Some troops are fantastic, some should be shut down and hosed out. Like every other mostly-volunteer organization, there just are not enough good people out there who are willing to step up and volunteer. Back in the early days of scouting, there were fewer boys in the program and more adults who had experience in the outdoors. The balance was better. Today, our society is so much more "civilized", and often adults have no more experience in the outdoors than do the boys. It makes me sad, but there are still a lot of great scout troops out there. I hope you run into one of those!"

 

 

[boomerscout]

not sure how I got stuck under Unit Fundraising. Oh, well!

[scoutldr]

"Scouts today are basically incompetent -- don't know how to act, behave, prepare for the wilderness."

 

It's not just Scouts. It's everyone. Just read an article about the failing local school system...and how teachers can't teach because they spend too much time just keeping kids from tearing the place (and each other) apart.

 

Just got back from my weekly trip to Costco. One of my pet peeves is the gas pumps and people who can't wait an extra 30 seconds and pull ahead of the car in front of them. This clueless moron in a Jag with FL plates had pulled around to get to the front pump and had effectively blocked everyone else. He, apparently in a stupor, proceeded to pump his gas, then took his time inspecting his receipt, putting his gas cap back on, and then several more minutes behind the wheel before pulling off. I wanted to get out of my car and box his ears and say "what the hell is wrong with you!!!" People today are totally self absorbed and have no awareness, much less consideration, for others. What we are seeing is this attitude passed on to the kids. I want it all, I want it now and I don't care what anyone else wants.

 

 

 

As we have discussed before, I don't think we need paid Scoutmasters. For one thing, I don't think we could afford the good ones if they are paid what they are worth. WHat we DO need is to quit proliferating "Webelos III" troops. Feed the good troops that already exist and support those with good programs. I'd rather see two good troops of 30 boys each solidly using the patrol method with experienced, trained leaders, than 6 troops of 5 boys each giving the rest a bad name.

[TAHAWK]

After nearly forty years in Scouting, I find no correlation between being paid and professionalism. The most professional Scouters I have ever known were/are not paid

(only rewarded).

 

And the money is just not there, even at Minimum Wage levels.

 

If the pool of volunteers were deepr, Scouting could be more selective.

 

Since the talent pool is not especially deep, making traing the highest priority seems the best course. But training does not appear to be the highest priority at any administrative level of Scouting.(This message has been edited by TAHAWK)

[desertrat77]

Weak troop leadership, and the subsequent chaos, has been a problem for decades. The scouts and BSA's reputation pay the price.

 

However, there are usually no consequences for lousy troops like the one outlined above. Folks from council on down know the troop is a mess, but no one steps in to lay down the law. So the scouts continue to act like donkeys in public, and their leaders shrug their shoulders "oh well."

 

It speaks to a larger problem, namely, many parents aren't trying to raise young men...they are content to let their teenager act like he was still five ("Oh my little Johnny is such a good boy!"). So he progresses through his teenage years thinking that his every action is cute, proper, and consequence-free.

 

And we all know how far this gets Johnny when he goes to college or gets a job where mummy and daddy aren't there to sweep his path.

 

Scoutldr said it best. Boy scouting is not Webelos III....

 

But as long as there are no consequences for running an out of control troop, we'll continue to absord negative press.

 

We UCs must do a better job of dealing frankly and swiftly with toxic troops.

 

I agree, it's better to shut down a troop than have them embarrass the whole organization.

[GernBlansten]

One sure fire method to improve our image to the outdoors public, would be to emphasis Leave No Trace Ethics and The Outdoor Code to our own members. Instead, many of us consider them to be just lip service to keep the liberal boogyman at bay.

[BadenP]

Direct to the topic, as a former pro and a long time volunteer I can tell you from experience that both entities are needed even though the relationship is sometimes adversarial. Councils deal with a lot of behind the scenes minutia that volunteers do not have the time to handle, camps, paperwork, reports etc. Another sad truth is that many volunteers come and go, and the chaos you hear about in other units is usually caused by a lack of consistent long term leadership. Now the question does the council really look out for the best interests of the unit? In theory the answer is supposed to be yes, but the reality is not really.

 

The National BSA is nothing more than a corporation, and the council pros are salesmen whose job it is to sell as many of the companies program products as possible to maximize membership and money being brought into the council. That concept is automatically at odds with the units needs for support, training, and resources necessary for them to deliver a quality program to their youth. The professionals goals are to create more units to increase their numbers and have more contributors for FOS,and to buy BSA products, once a unit has been created they are kind of left on their own to fend for themselves.

[TAHAWK]

BP,

 

I would respectfully suggest two things.

 

The top leadership in my District has been there for an average that exceeds 20 years. During that time, we have averaged more than one DE per year. In one year, we had four. Yes, unpaid Socuters come and go, but paid Scouters do the same. (After all, many didn't want the job in the first place, perform in acordance with that situation, and leave ASAP. Who remains? The solid-gold lifers, bless them, who could afford to remain and those who can't get out despite their best efforts. Yes, I REALLY want that method to staff SM slots.)

 

As for quality program and training being at odds with the metrics by which paid Scouter performance is measured, the behavior of paid Scouters would say they believe that statement.

 

IMO, they are dead wrong in their behavior. Quality program and quality unit leadership PRODUCES good unit membership, numbers of healthy units, and unit and FOS money. We are simply dealing with the short-term focus on symptoms rather than focus on causes. (What DO they tell paid Scouters in their training?)

 

I still have the job description card I was given when I first became a SM. The first obligation listed was training Scouts in leadership. Whoever composed that card knew the path to good results. If only. (emoticon for sighing goes here)

[BadenP]

Tahawk

I don't disagree with you, I was talking about the average scout leader who is in it only as long as their son is, or even less. The type of vounteer you are speaking about are getting to be a rare species. Somewhere between 1910 and today National created even more layers of professional scouting, like regional offices, special interest groups, etc, and like the government before long created the huge bureaucracy that exsists today each with their own special mission, and few if any of them supporting the volunteers. Bottom line National is in it to raise enough money to support this huge complex of professional scouting and when times get tough they fold or merge councils that are supposed to be directly serving the volunteers. Why not start at the top, do we really need to have an Assistant Chief Scout Executive? There are many other top spots and departments that could be eliminated as well.