What's it going to take to make the perfect UC?

[Stosh]

Pitched the proposal to the DC and the rest of the UC's this evening.  They all thought it was something they could get excited about.  Along with plugging names on paper into the system to meet National's requirements, the UC would function more as a group rather than individuals.  Their first concern would be to establish contact with the DE to make sure all the recharter packet went out.  Started at the RT tonight and the DE will let the UC Corps know who still needs them to be delivered.  Then we plan on making contact with the training committee to notify us if there are any units that have missed out on the rechartering training and we will work with them to make sure every one is trained.

 

Then immediately after rechartering, the UC Corps will review all the recharters and do exit telephone interviews with each boy that was dropped from re-registration and find out why.  We will compile the results from these interviews on each unit and touch base with the unit for an annual meeting of troop leadership and share the results of those findings.  This will give a state of the unit accounting and an opportunity for the unit to respond to what was discovered in these interview.

 

After that we will work with the various organizers to find out why units are or are not involved in the district activities.  This will give an accounting of why units do not attend camporees, RT's, council summer camp, etc. to find out why and what areas in the district need addressing.

 

This research will allow the UC Corps an opportunity to apply resources directly to areas that have been identified as problematic rather than wasting them on nationally mandated paperwork projects that no one ever follows up anyway.

 

The die has already been cast as to what's going to happen this round of rechartering, but it is projected that if we start now, maybe we can head off a lot of these persistent issues by proactively addressing them rather than trying to salvage something after it's too late.  

 

The consensus seemed to think that the combined resources of just a few could be better applied as a group on specific problems rather than spread thin over all the units including units that are operating very well without needing UC support at the moment.

 

The DC did also mention the potential of identifying the specific skills of the UC Corp members and making those available to the units as well.  She did specifically mention that if a unit really wishes to move towards a boy-led program, UC's that are motivated in that area would be available to work with the unit directly.

 

If nothing else, it was the most animated meeting of the UC's I've attended in the past 3 years.

Edited January 15, 2016 by Stosh

[Krampus]

@@Stosh, couldn't/shouldn't the UCs contact the units to find out why scouts/adults dropped too? First, you get both sides of the story, Second, in many cases the unit knew (or suspected) a scout may drop for various reasons. Might help complete the picture from both sides.

[Stosh]

@@Stosh, couldn't/shouldn't the UCs contact the units to find out why scouts/adults dropped too? First, you get both sides of the story, Second, in many cases the unit knew (or suspected) a scout may drop for various reasons. Might help complete the picture from both sides.

@@Krampus,  Most definitly!  The thought behind the approach was for many years we have been listening only to the unit side of the issues when the UC's did their contacts.  By targeting the other side of the coin, we can focus on the specific issue of scout retention and why it isn't happening.  It would also give a more general idea of the pulse of the whole district.  If there seems to be a consensus among multiple units that there's a problem with the camporees, for example, that would be an issue that would be pushed up the ladder for other district committees to address as well. 

 

If there seems to be a lot of loss of cross over boys, we ASSUME it's because the boys weren't interested in Boy Scouts, or maybe it's the fact that the boys aren't assimilating well, or... or.... or.... or one could just ask the boys directly. 

 

Are the older boys dropping out?  Is it REALLY the fumes? or is it they are bored or they're tired of having to work with the younger boys all the time and want to do some things for themselves, would they be good candidates to re-register into a Venturing Crew?  None of these issues are even identified when talking to the units.  The units tend to give glowing reports of the program the boys are in, but nothing is ever discussed about the boys who voted with their feet.

 

Once we have that data, then we can add that to the discussion of how well the unit is doing in terms of recruiting, program AND RETENTION. 

 

It was kinda surprising that the first issue the UC Corps brought up was this issue of retention.  Maybe it was because we are just starting the re-chartering process in the district.  One of the guys said that it would be a good way to get a good reading on the unit's program.  Obviously they will continue to keep doing what they do well, but maybe they are unaware of what they do not do well.  This re-charter follow up hopefully will address that.

 

By the way, it was also emphasized that every unit regardless of anything else will get an annual or even semi-annual meeting with a UC to see how things are going.

Edited January 15, 2016 by Stosh

[Eagledad]

Wow, stosh, that is actually pretty good.

 

Our district wanted to confront the Webelos drop out problem when I was the Membership Chairman. Nationally the drop out rate of Webelos to scouts is over 50 percent, and our district was right along that number. We had identified that adult burnout was the major cause of the huge drop out rate. So we came up with a plan to attack the problem by identifying weak Webelos dens and attaching them to a troop hoping the troop leaders would help the den leader plan a better program. All that to say that we created a Red Flag list for the UCs to help the UC Corp identify the weak dens. That was a while ago, so I don't have the list anymore, but the objective was for the UC to be able to evaluate each den from a distance so as not to appear intrusive or judging. We were trying to fix the problem at the front instead of finding the problem at the back or rechartering. The list was only to find weak dens, not try to improve the performance of all the dens. In our studies at the time, probably 30 to 50 percent of the dens fall under the heading of leader burnout.

 

I guess I'm trying to say that if the UC corp can find ways to identify problems at the start with simple little checks, finding solutions is a lot easier.

 

Barry

Edited January 15, 2016 by Eagledad

[Stosh]

I don't think the process that was suggested by our brain-storming UC's last night would address what @@Eagledad mentions because it seems to focus on AFTER the cross over and into the initial contact with the Boy Scout unit.  I'm thinking the problem of Cub Scout "Graduation" wouldn't show up.  Here one has gung ho boys working hard on their AOL after 5 years of Cubbing and have no intention of going on into Boy Scouts regardless of what kind of program they offer. 

 

Looking at 2nd year Webelos and not finding corresponding new names in Boy Scout units would be a bit more difficult to dig out, but not impossible.  One could assume (yes, the dreaded word) that by identifying units that had a large number of boys that did not cross over could be approached about better prepping the boys for the new adventure of Boy Scouts.  That could be a valuable push by the UC Corps, kind of a FOS approach to the process.  The UC's going out in the fall and meeting with all the 2nd year Webelos units and maybe along with scouts from potential units they could join do some actual hand-son recruiting of the boys rather than just assuming (yep, there it is again) that the boys will all automatically cross over into Boy Scouts.

[Eagledad]

I don't think the process that was suggested by our brain-storming UC's last night would address what @@Eagledad mentions because it seems to focus on AFTER the cross over and into the initial contact with the Boy Scout unit.  I'm thinking the problem of Cub Scout "Graduation" wouldn't show up.  Here one has gung ho boys working hard on their AOL after 5 years of Cubbing and have no intention of going on into Boy Scouts regardless of what kind of program they offer. 

 

Looking at 2nd year Webelos and not finding corresponding new names in Boy Scout units would be a bit more difficult to dig out, but not impossible.  One could assume (yes, the dreaded word) that by identifying units that had a large number of boys that did not cross over could be approached about better prepping the boys for the new adventure of Boy Scouts.  That could be a valuable push by the UC Corps, kind of a FOS approach to the process.  The UC's going out in the fall and meeting with all the 2nd year Webelos units and maybe along with scouts from potential units they could join do some actual hand-son recruiting of the boys rather than just assuming (yep, there it is again) that the boys will all automatically cross over into Boy Scouts.

No, we were looking at helping the first year Webelos leader. We found that most of the weak Webelos leaders were either Wolf Bear leaders who were burned out but couldn't find a replacement for the Webelos years, or they did find the replacement, but their heart wasn't into being a leader and only did the minimum required. So by identifying these leaders quickly, we could attach them to a willing troop where they could offer help. It really wasn't a stretch for most troops because they an adult memeber who had Webelos experience. Each den is different, so the help required was different. But the troop didn't need to help that much to get the den moving forward, and the little they did provide was a huge boost for the Den Leader.

 

Boys identify their expectations of the future by experience of the present. We found that scouts who are bored in the den program relate that expectation to the future or Troop program. By attaching the den to a troop, hopefully the den program becomes fun, AND the boys get to actually observe a real troop program in action and see that it is a new and exciting adventure.

 

It was an easy sell for me. Councils set goals for the Districts and our district came up about 7 crossovers short that year. I pointed out to the DE that if we could get just one additional boy from each Pack to crossover, we would not only surpass the goal by A LOT, we would break all the goals of all the other districts. Imagine what we could do by getting just one additional scout from each weak den. Imagine getting whole dens to crossover.

 

We also created several activities to help the packs with the Webelos dens by helping them get associated with Troops and helping them with ideas for better (easier) den programs. We found that most Webelos leaders are reluctant to contact Troops because they don't know anybody and find talking to a strange leader of a strange troop very intimidating, especially female den leaders. These were in addition to and outside the Round Tables because a lot of leaders can't make RT. We were trying to help make the Webelos program less daunting, especially for those leaders whose hearts weren't really into it. They are the dens where the scouts don't crossover.

 

Barry

[Eagledad]

One other thing. Our program came from the Membership Committee. We invited the UC corp as a team member to help. Adding additional activities and programs can quickly overwhelm and kill a program or committee. So I'm not suggesting the UC corp take on whole programs. It really depends on the make up of the District. We asked only for the help of the UCs to help us identify the weak dens. We then took responsibility for helping those dens. As I said, each district is different in how they can approach issues, but I have seen more good ideas fail than succeed because the work required to make the idea succeed created an imbalance to the overall program that couldn't get righted. You have some good ideas, try to share the work and the wealth.

 

Barry

[qwazse]

I think, in general, UC's who get together, share data, and plan specific near-term actions that they can do as a team (like calling a sample of boys who drop from a roster, promoting a scout-driven recruiting campaign, highlighting some district or council program) will be more effective and efficient than waiting for a plan from National.

 

Some people will balk at training, but if there's a routine cycle of problem-solving that they can get in on, the training can be slipped in while some "work's getting done."

[Stosh]

One other thing. Our program came from the Membership Committee. We invited the UC corp as a team member to help. Adding additional activities and programs can quickly overwhelm and kill a program or committee. So I'm not suggesting the UC corp take on whole programs. It really depends on the make up of the District. We asked only for the help of the UCs to help us identify the weak dens.

 

What was the criteria the UC Corp used to determine struggling Web 1 dens?  What was the timing on their approach to this.  Did they contact the CM's or the WDL's?  You were on the membership side, I'm on the UC Corp side. 

 

We then took responsibility for helping those dens. As I said, each district is different in how they can approach issues, but I have seen more good ideas fail than succeed because the work required to make the idea succeed created an imbalance to the overall program that couldn't get righted. You have some good ideas, try to share the work and the wealth.

 

Barry

 

 

I think, in general, UC's who get together, share data, and plan specific near-term actions that they can do as a team (like calling a sample of boys who drop from a roster, promoting a scout-driven recruiting campaign, highlighting some district or council program) will be more effective and efficient than waiting for a plan from National.

 

At 65, I'm getting too old to wait for National to get their act together.  I might only live another 20 years.

 

Some people will balk at training, but if there's a routine cycle of problem-solving that they can get in on, the training can be slipped in while some "work's getting done."

 

Along with moving from an individual UC assignment to a team/corp approach, it was agreed that each part of the monthly meeting would be a section of the UC training syllabus and that other topics related to our goals would be incorporated into further training, i.e. group dynamics, conflict management, youth leadership implementation, patrol method implementation, adult leader burnout, etc. resources that we could find in the district.  An evaluation of the trained UC's skills would also be compiled so as to meet immediate concerns as they came up this first year.  This will resolve the problem of a super experienced UC being assigned to a smooth running unit and a newbie assigned to a struggling unit.  In a heartbeat, the smooth running unit could fare on its own for a while and the veteran and newbie UC's could team up to address the problem of the struggling unit.  This would allow for better mentoring of the newbie by the veteran using actual situations, real-life on the job training.

[DuctTape]

The UC corps working together like a patrol. No surprise it would be more effective. Plus maybe when the adults use the patrol method themselves they might be able to effectively nurture it in the units.

[blw2]

Boy, this webelos burnout, drops and losses really hits home.  I'm living all that first hand right now, well I'm at the threshold of the exit door....

 

My theory, just based on one perspective... my own....

I think a huge part of it goes back to lack of support early on while the leaders are figuring it out.

Training stinks

The scouters just figuring it out in the pack are burned out and checked out.... or they have a bunch of bad habits.  

there is no pass down of knowledge.

 

Take my son's DL for example.  He picked up the job in the wolf year when the 1st DL moved out of town.  He tried and made good effort in making a go of the program, but several things got in the way of a program that "probably" would have worked better

He made a good effort, but he wasn't exactly gung ho like I have been (searching out this forum as a case in point)

On top of that he's not one of those naturally good teacher types....leading a group of kids, holding their interest, keeping them in line, etc... Just like me, a 'typical' average dad I would say in that regard with no training in that field.

He did the most basic of training, but that doesn't help all that much.  

Wasn't gung ho enough to be jazzed about searching out actuall face to face leader specific training for example, and so he never did really gain a full understanding of the program, the transitions, the things we should have started when the boys put on the plaid.

Instead he pretty much just continued running the den as we did for the tiger, wolf, and bear years before.... activities for an older boy, sure, but the way the thing ran.

 

I pretty much fall into the same area, even considering I've participated here, attending far more training classes than any other scouter in the pack, etc.... I would say without a doubt that I often think that I wish I could go back and do it over again, except knowing what I know now.... but I'm far too burned out with cubs to be gung ho about doing that.... and with no younger son coming up...

Even now, as I'm focusing my energies on learning more about troop level stuff, I'm learning things that make me say, "boy I sure do wish someone would have told me that several years ago!"

 

Boiling down this rambling post, my point is this......

from my perspective, I think a focus of this UC Corps could be mentoring young and energetic scouters to help them focus without haveing to re-invent every wheel.