A Council Advancement Goal

[Beavah]

I serve on the District and Council Advancement Committee. One of the focuses of late is to look at every unit and keep track of their "Percentage of Advancement". This is because each Scout advancing a rank a year is a stated Council Goal.

 

This was a quote from OGE in another thread.

 

I can't help but think that this is a poor goal for a council. A goal should be somethin' that a council can reasonably accomplish, eh?

 

Good council goals might be improving the user satisfaction with summer camp, or building endowment to a certain level, or providin' a high level of service to units, or supporting multiple high adventure opportunities for scouts and units.

 

Advancement is a unit-level thing, eh? Why does that belong as a council goal?

 

Beavah

 

[Eamonn]

I for the most part agree with you.

Still I have to admit that when I was District Commish and later as District Chair. I requested that the Registrar send me a monthly copy of the District Advancement Report.

I used this as a tool to keep an eye on what was happening at the unit level.

While it wasn't the best way to know what might be going on. If a Troop was maybe showing no advancement and no MB's, it send up a red flag that maybe all was not well and a word with someone from that Troop would be a good idea.

Sometimes there were good reasons why the report showed no advancement.

At times I was guilty of trying to push membership goals on to units.

I really did try and push this, while at times it might have worked with Packs, for the most part with Troops it was like trying to teach a pig to sing. Not only didn't it work, but I was upsetting the Troop Leaders.

So I quit doing it!

Ea.

 

[nolesrule]

Our DC provides us UCs with the monthly District Advancement report. Sometimes a lack of advancement is just deferred Advancement reports. Other times it's a red flag that a unit might be having an issue. But an active UC should be able to know the difference in his/her units.

 

As for the council or district goal, I'm pretty sure that setting an advancement goal of this nature is part of the Quality District/Council process. I know it is for Quality Unit. But it should be a reasonable goal. And it should take into account that advancement is not a method of Venturing.

[Beavah]

Yah, so if a council is behind on its "goal", what exactly is it goin' to do? Other than annoying the unit leaders, as Eamonn suggests?

 

Schedule a few extra Merit Badge Mill days?

 

Promote a T-2-1-in-a-weekend event?

 

Require a troop to have patrols no bigger than 4 so that there are more Patrol Leaders earnin' time-in-POR?

 

Start giving out money for each rank a lad makes?

 

Inquiring minds want to know!

 

Beavah

 

 

[OldGreyEagle]

I must say I am a bit flummoxed here

 

I thought it was the duty of scouters to support and respect the decisions of others who volunteer their time and efforts to running the BSA program and not critique their performamce based on a few lines in an obscure internet forum.

 

"Schedule a few extra Merit Badge Mill days?

 

Promote a T-2-1-in-a-weekend event?

 

Require a troop to have patrols no bigger than 4 so that there are more Patrol Leaders earnin' time-in-POR?

 

Start giving out money for each rank a lad makes? "

 

 

 

These all seem pretty mocking to me

 

 

 

[evmori]

I have always thought the way my council handles advancement to be a little iffy. Based on the way they calc it, a unit can have 110% advancement! If a Scout advances more than one rank in a year you can get these percentages. I don't agree with this method. If you have 10 Scouts and 9 advance one or more ranks during the year you have 90% advancement.

[CalicoPenn]

If the goal creates a situation where the Council is pressuring the District Committee/District Commissioner Staff to pressure the Units into making sure every Scout in the Unit advances one rank per year - then it's a goal that is going to fail right at the beginning as Scoutmasters tell the District folk to go climb a tree.

 

If the goal creates a situation where the Council reflects on the support they give to Units to encourage advancement, and creates new opportunities that can be accessed by units, then it's an admirable goal and a successful goal, even if the goal itself is not fully reached.

 

It's a goal, not a mandate - if at the end of the year the Council can say "well, only 95% of Scouts advanced one rank this past year, but we created some exciting new programs, revamped our moribund summer camp program which was very well received, and last year only 85% of Scouts advanced one rank" - then I don't know of anyone who would claim that is not a success - except perhaps for those that believe unless something is 100% met, then it is a failure.

 

 

[Stosh]

If this became an expectation on the unit level, here's the abuse that can happen.

 

Each boy can only earn one rank per year. This will keep the multiple rank advancement from going wasted and now showing in the numbers.

 

This means that the 7 years of scouting with one rank per year means that the boy who stay until they are 18 will not need to exit the troop early. But because they don't have an opportunity to contribute to the troop's numbers/statistics, any scouter who has Eagle more than a year before they turn 18 will need to quit.

 

Makes sense to me.....

 

Seriously, folks, any scout that gets his FC at the end of the first year is really going to put the troop in the dumpster over the next 6 years when he has only 3 ranks to achieve.

 

Stosh

[Beavah]

I thought it was the duty of scouters to support and respect the decisions of others who volunteer their time and efforts to running the BSA program and not critique their performamce based on a few lines in an obscure internet forum.

 

Yah, I reckon a lot of us volunteer our time and efforts to create, revise, and "run" the BSA program materials and support, eh? I'm not at all sure we deserve either support or respect. Quite the contrary. I think it's our duty to provide support to scouters, and to respect our chartered partners and their volunteers.

 

But then I've said before that I'm a sort of old fashioned fellow.

 

An advancement percentage is a poor goal for a council to have, because they don't have any control over it. So if they're gettin' all serious about it, then a bit of mockery is in order. It's a waste of good folks time that should be called out. If we care about kids and program, we shouldn't waste good people's time.

 

Calico's got da right of it. I think a good council focuses on how it can best provide resources and support to help the unit leaders. An advancement percentage goal is a poor goal, IMO, because the easiest way to achieve it is in da ways I and jblake described, eh? We humans always take the most efficient route to our goals.

 

If yeh really want to support and improve good program, yeh need a better goal.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[nolesrule]

Beavah, just because I wrote about the goals a few posts up doesn't mean I think it's worth a hill of beans. I also agree with what Calico wrote, about how it could have a positive or negative affect.

 

Percentages aside, for a commissioner, the advancement reports are just a tool in our box to help us keep an eye on unit health (lack of advancement can be a sign of a troubled unit), or to make sure they are remembering to turn in their advancement reports regularly.

 

My units are the 3 closest to Council Service Center so they better not have issues turning them in. :-)

 

But the advancement reports taken by themselves should not be used to diagnose anything.

[Beavah]

Percentages aside, for a commissioner, the advancement reports are just a tool in our box to help us keep an eye on unit health (lack of advancement can be a sign of a troubled unit)

 

LOL. I usually read da things. Generally speakin', I find 'em more reliable as a way of identifying those who are using advancement poorly (rapid/badge mill type advancement). I'm not sure I could reliably ID a "low advancement" threshold that was a good predictor of a troubled unit. Hard to say. Anyway, there are a lot better predictors of troubled units, and if yeh need da computer to tell you where your troubled units are then I reckon yeh have other problems.

 

Beavah

[nolesrule]

Beavah. Not arguing with you. I agree with you.

 

And I explicitly said it was just one factor. "But the advancement reports taken by themselves should not be used to diagnose anything."

 

On the other hand, I can't visit each of my troops 5 times a month, especially when they meet at the same time. So I can't see everything that's happening.

 

And yes, it is a good way to spot the advancement mills. That's something that really stands out on the reports.

[OldGreyEagle]

If you have to use italics to make a point, perhaps there is a better way of explaining yourself, just sayin'

 

The Goal of one rank a year came from the First Class First Year program. BSA research points out that a boy progressing through the ranks tends to stay in scouting and the goal of the Council is to have Scouts stay in at least 5 years which another study shows the time required to have the ehtics of the Oath and Law best engendered in the youth.

 

The idea of the One Rank One Year is so if the advancement goal is not reached, it gives the unit a platform to decide why not. If its a numbers game, of fewer older boys in the troop, then it points to a need to beef up recruiting. If it's a lack of interesting program or the majority of the boys are cross committed, that becomes apparent as well. It also gives the District and Council feedback on the state of Programs offered at their level. This also gives District and COuncil Leadership to look over the health of the units program. If you think hey thats the commissioners job you are correct. But how many times have we heard the commissioner system is broke and needs to be fixed, this is our fix

 

Let me assure you that the idea of paying scouts to earn ranks has not been broached. We have a new dam at summer camp to pay for. Patrol size is not dictated and no one promotes a T-first class week end. The standards of the requirments are upheld, or at least we on the Advancement Committee keep stressing that if the reason boys do not advance is because they are not there, you dont rush them through requirments when they are. They either know their material or they dont and then they dont advance and the reason is poor attendance.

 

There is nothinging wrong with not advancing a rank a year per scout, but its the self examination that is supposed to be helpful.

 

As far as the comment that Advancement is the unit's reponsbility why then is advancement tied to both District and Council Centennial status?

[Eagle92]

Well I went to the BS RT last nite, and part of the discussion was how CS were moving to advancement oriented meetings and troops may want to look at that model for planning their meetings.

[Beavah]

As far as the comment that Advancement is the unit's reponsbility why then is advancement tied to both District and Council Centennial status?

 

Yah, that's da point, eh? It's a terrible idea. Leads to the kind of silliness that Eagle92 describes. Just like tyin' professional evaluations to numbers of youth led to lots of falsified youth registrations in council after council.

 

Settin' poor goals can do a lot of harm. Da easiest way to meet da rank goal is to offer merit badges and rank classes at meetings, and I don't reckon that's what we want.

 

a boy progressing through the ranks tends to stay in scouting. Nah. That's a correlation-is-not-causation fallacy. A boy who is interested in scouting and stays active tends to progress through the ranks.

 

If its a numbers game, of fewer older boys in the troop, then it points to a need to beef up recruiting. Nah, yeh missed jblake's point. His point wasn't a fall off in older lads (which would be retention not recruiting in any event). It was just that havin' such a goal makes yeh want to do two things. Either delay t-2-1 advancement so that yeh get da one rank a year credit, or push units toward a 14-Eagle-and-out.

 

If it's a lack of interesting program or the majority of the boys are cross committed, that becomes apparent as well. How? I've never gotten that info out of an advancement report, and I've been readin' 'em for a lot of years.

 

This also gives District and COuncil Leadership to look over the health of the units program. Yah, nolesrule and I were talkin' about that, eh? My experience has been that it's really easy to see a unit that is doin' the advancement mill thing (weak program). With your goal, though, that would be a good unit, eh? It would be a unit that was helping you reach your council goal. It's really hard to tell on the other end. I can point to a mess of boys and units that don't push advancement but are part of active, outstanding programs.

 

So it seems like such a goal would laud those with weak programs and pester those that might have stronger programs.

 

Yah, yah, sure, a unit that's approachin' its deathbed might also show weak advancement, but at that point there are soooo many other indicators. Low numbers of registered adults, falling youth numbers, transfers out, etc.

 

Beavah