Lone Scouts - a better structure

[DuctTape]

7 hours ago, ParkMan said:

We have a BSA to provide Scouting to kids.  Seems pretty natural that we'd measure success of the BSA by how many members of has.

I think you know the path to seeing Lone Scouting again.  If you really want it, work for it.  The rest of this stuff is just platitudes.

Quantity is often used as a measure of success ignoring and at the expense of quality. 

Quantity is cheap and easy to measure, however as a surrogate for quality it fails miserably.

[RememberSchiff]

How to measure success of the BSA... worthy of a topic of its own.

[qwazse]

1 hour ago, DuctTape said:

Quantity is often used as a measure of success ignoring and at the expense of quality. 

Quantity is cheap and easy to measure, however as a surrogate for quality it fails miserably.

 

1 hour ago, RememberSchiff said:

How to measure success of the BSA... worthy of a topic of its own.

Quantity has a quality all its own. - Thomas A. Callaghan Jr.

[Eagledad]

8 hours ago, MattR said:

But why even consider creating a new program? That's beyond anyone's control. Why not just make the change within your unit. "As a troop, the adults are not going to do anything to promote advancement. The adults will encourage learning skills, doing service and going on adventures that the scouts are interested in. The adults are only interested in developing character. The scouts mostly decide what the methods are."

Try it out. Nobody will stop you as long as you're true to the safety issues and the aims of scouting. The rest is baggage that you can dump. If it works then let us know and let your neighboring units know. If it works really well then it will grow and eventually take over. That would be much easier to implement than starting over. 

Weird topic, discussing a program whose advantages hasn't been described.

I learned several years ago with KUDU that good scout leaders will make any program structure work for their success. Baden Powell Scouts, BSA Scouts, Lone Scouts, it really doesn't matter. It's not the program structure that makes success, it's understanding how all the parts make the whole of the vision. Experts say that 4% of the population are big picture people. Program structures are created for the other 96%.

My High School Principle son told me once that the difference between the quality of schools is the common vision of the teachers and administration. More often the problem is the lack of the common vision.

Rare is the program (any program) guided by a visionary who manages the small parts successfully to achieve above average performance. 

MattR and I don't always agree, I'm not sure why. But, I strongly agree, "Try It". Nobody will stop you. Nobody stopped me. Extreme. Radical. Or, maybe the program is closer to the original design because the others got off track somewhere way back. MattR says "If it works then let us know". That's why he is here, and why I'm here. Many of us are here because we have the T-Shirt. We know. But not in the since of "My way of the Highway". We know in the since of principles and youth psyche. The T-Shirt is torn and stained with blood, sweat and tears. 

I've watch this subject and I have yet to see anything in small brief description of Lone Scouts that our troop wasn't doing. After shucking away all the anger and emotion, Lone Scouts is just another scouts program. Make it work.

Barry

[DuctTape]

2 hours ago, qwazse said:

 

Quantity has a quality all its own. - Thomas A. Callaghan Jr.

"and that quality is limited to only "how much" and no more"  -Duct Tape

😉

[David CO]

11 hours ago, MattR said:

Why not just make the change within your unit.

Lone Scouting can't be done within a unit.  I would have thought that was obvious.  Suggesting that we do Lone Scouting within our unit is like saying home schooling is fine, so long as it is done within a public school building.  It doesn't make any sense.  

[David CO]

I have wondered if it might be theoretically possible to have Chartered Organizations involved in Lone Scouts.  Maybe a special type of charter allowing a CO to recruit, register, train, and assist Lone Scouts.  The CO would represent the Lone Scouts to the council.  Just a thought.  There are organizations that do this for home schoolers.

Edited August 28, 2020 by David CO

[ParkMan]

7 hours ago, DuctTape said:

Quantity is often used as a measure of success ignoring and at the expense of quality. 

Quantity is cheap and easy to measure, however as a surrogate for quality it fails miserably.

There is somewhere around 74 million kids in the United States today.  At some point a program focused around providing to those 74 million kids needs to ask itself - how many are joining?  

The world is full of good ideas.  I can rattle off 50 ideas that would make Scouting better.  All those ideas require thousands of hours of peoples' time and lots of money to make them work.  If every idea that gets raised is measured solely on whether it's a good program idea or not we'd be all over the map as a program. 

Similarly - tone person's good program idea is that it's another person's bad program idea.  @David CO likes Lone Scouts and thinks it's the fix for Scouting.  Others look at it and think it's a bad idea.  How does one evaluate such an idea without some sort of basis to measure it.

To be honest, I think that's one of the issues the BSA has today - too many knee jerk reactions to different ideas people have without really thinking through if it actually will help build a better program and attract more members.  Soccer Scouts, STEM Scouts?  These are all someone's good, half baked idea.  

Edited August 28, 2020 by ParkMan
clarified a thought

[walk in the woods]

On 8/26/2020 at 6:32 PM, RememberSchiff said:

Boyce felt that the program of the BSA did not help the rural boy who could not find enough other boys to form a troop or a patrol. James E. West, the first Chief Scout Executive of the BSA, disagreed with Boyce's concept, believing that the 4-H program was fulfilling the role.

It was true then, and it's true today.  Lone Scouting could have the ability to improve membership in rural areas that struggle to meet the minimum numbers of youth and adults for a BSA unit.  Although I don't know that it could compete with 4-H/FFA combination, especially as they've broadened their appeal over the years.  4-H has advantages that scouting doesn't, e.g. taxpayer funding, but their model seems similar to what @David CO describes.  And, they are clearly doing something right, 6 million kids, 500k volunteers, 3500 professionals according to one article I read.  They seem to have pulled off STEM, and specialty clubs (i.e. Crews), and family involvement, and bridged the Rural/Urban divide.  There might be lessons to be learned from both Lone Scouts and 4-H.  Instead of formal Troops, why not have a Scouting club in an area if there are only 1 or 2 kids from 2 or 3 little towns?  Let the kids and the parents set the program rather than being advancement driven.  Maybe they only meet once a month and camp a few times a year.  Maybe they have Deer Camp instead of Summer Camp?  IDK, the possibilities are endless.

[David CO]

36 minutes ago, walk in the woods said:

It was true then, and it's true today.  Lone Scouting could have the ability to improve membership in rural areas that struggle to meet the minimum numbers of youth and adults for a BSA unit.  

Yes, it is true.  But Lone Scouting did not only appeal to boys in rural areas.  It also had great appeal to boys in urban areas where BSA had already established traditional units.  Many boys preferred LSA over BSA.  So much so that a majority of the boys in LSA refused to transfer over to BSA units after the "merger".  

 

[dkurtenbach]

42 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

There is somewhere around 74 million kids in the United States today.  At some point a program focused around providing to those 74 million kids needs to ask itself - how many are joining?  

The world is full of good ideas.  I can rattle off 50 ideas that would make Scouting better.  All those ideas require thousands of hours of peoples' time and lots of money to make them work.  If every idea that gets raised is measured solely on whether it's a good program idea or not we'd be all over the map as a program. 

Similarly - tone person's good program idea is that it's another person's bad program idea.  @David CO likes Lone Scouts and thinks it's the fix for Scouting.  Others look at it and think it's a bad idea.  How does one evaluate such an idea without some sort of basis to measure it.

To be honest, I think that's one of the issues the BSA has today - too many knee jerk reactions to different ideas people have without really thinking through if it actually will help build a better program and attract more members.  Soccer Scouts, STEM Scouts?  These are all someone's good, half baked idea.  

A few thoughts:

• Quantity (BSA membership) may not be a measure of BSA program quality, but it is a measure of something (or more than one something) about BSA.  Membership is the lifeblood of the Scouting program.  It would be useful to try to pin down the causes of membership decline and figure out if there is something that can be corrected or improved, and at what level.
   
• Personally, I think the program is not quite as good as it used to be because BSA has lowered its standards for successful performance -- as documented in the changes to the Guide to Advancement over the years.  That said, we would probably benefit from a freeze on all program changes for at least five years, so that we can work on what I think is our biggest challenge . . . 
   
• . . . That challenge being is execution of the program at the unit level.  It is too uneven from unit to unit, and too uneven from year to year within the same unit.  That is critical for three reasons: (1) Every youth who joins Scouting is entitled to a high quality experience and the same level of experience as the highest quality units in the country.  (2) Retention of a youth who is already a member is almost entirely dependent upon whether the youth is having a good experience in the unit program.  (2) As to recruitment, every youth and parent that leaves Scouting because of the unit program means a negative recommendation to relatives and friends now and for the next several years, and it means that when that former Scout grows up and has children, those children will be kept out of Scouting. 
   
• There are some structural problems in Scouting that are well known and have an effect on membership.  Those problems can be partially overcome with a lot of work and cooperation among leaders of different units, but it can't be done uniformly because multiple units are involved and leaders are always changing.  Any real and lasting fix must come from BSA National.  Those structural problems are:  (1) The break between the Cub Scout / Webelos / Arrow of Light program and the Boy Scout / Scouts BSA program, which makes it easy for youth to leave Scouting in fifth grade.  (2) The fact that the vast majority of Boy Scout / Scouts BSA members have been and continue to be from Cub Scouts, meaning that troop membership is almost entirely dependent upon how well Cub Scout leaders recruited kindergarteners, first graders, and second graders several years in the past.
   
• BSA is going through structural changes right now because of the bankruptcy, and so now is the perfect time to consider structural changes such as the one @David CO has suggested in order to address known problems -- especially ones that involve membership. 
   
• Structurally, Scouting is built around groups of youth and adults getting together on a regular basis.  Those group programs require a lot of organization by a lot of adults, and it is well known that many Scouting units, districts, and other organizations within Scouting have difficulty recruiting enough adults.  That may be a problem of execution, not an inherent weakness in the program; but it is real.  To carry out unit activities, summer camps, OA activities, and district and council activities, Scouting units and groups require access to various kinds of large facilities as well as quantities of equipment and supplies for use in those activities.  Those, in turn, require funding. 
   
• But suppose that a big chunk (though not all) of the current, existing Scouting program could also be delivered on an individual and family basis without the need for group gatherings, groups of adults to manage the groups of youth, large facilities, and large quantities of equipment and supplies. That Scouting program would not be tied to or limited by group meeting and activity schedules, making it easy for the individual Scout and parents to work it into their schedules.  Why not make such a low-cost, low-resource option available to anyone anywhere (regardless of the availability of units) to reach families that would love Scouting but just can't take on additional scheduled activities or can't provide the adult support expected by the unit?  BSA already has everything needed -- it just needs to open it up.

[David CO]

4 minutes ago, dkurtenbach said:

  Any real and lasting fix must come from BSA National. 

Then we are doomed.

[dkurtenbach]

9 hours ago, RememberSchiff said:

How to measure success of the BSA... worthy of a topic of its own.

Well, here's a proposition to start discussion on such a topic:  If Eagle Scout rank was used as a measure of success of the BSA, BSA would be a failure.  Eagle Scout rank is designed to be achievable by any Scout -- no special qualities required.  It could be earned by Scouts as young as 13.  Yet only a small percentage of Scouts follow through, despite the iconic status and value of the award.  

[Sentinel947]

@dkurtenbachs post brings up an interesting question to me. 

What are our goals for Scouting? What do we want youth to get out of Scouting?

Lone Scouting and the Scouts BSA program have different outcomes based on their structure. Lone Scouting is more about individual growth in the context of youth to parent activities. Mainstream Scouting's outcomes are based mostly on individual growth in the context of peer to peer involvement, with some youth to adult interactions. There's pros and cons to each and these are fundamental differences.

As mentioned, Scouts BSA involves heavy volunteer support, and units either fail to recruit volunteers, or quality volunteers are not interested or not available. Beyond a lack of interested youth, a lack of qualified, quality volunteers is the Achilles heel of the Scouts BSA program. Units with strong adult volunteer groups will run attractive growth filled programs, and will have plenty of youth and adult volunteers. As the adult leadership decays, so does the Troop program, and so does the interest of youth joining. 

I personally have no need for lone Scouting if I have kids. It's the same reason I'd have no need for "Family Scouting." I can get them in the outdoors, learning new things and experiencing cool places, without paying the BSA anything. I'd put them in Scouting because I want them to have that involvement with other youth, and to benefit from the mentorship of other adult volunteers. I'm willing to pay for that, the same way I'd be willing to pay for Band, theater, sports, or church youth group. I'm entirely unwilling to pay for something that I can do myself for free. 

I can see where some Scouts and some parents, Lone Scouting would meet their needs and goals and that's fine. A significant chunk of the Scouting program (IE, what's in the Scout Handbook and Merit Badge program) can be delivered by just the parents to their Scout. When I reflect on my Scouting experiences from my youth, I don't often think about what I learned in my merit badges, or what I did for rank advancement. I think about time spent with my friends, in my patrol, practicing teamwork and leadership. Those shared experiences with my friends is the true value in Scouting for me.

Seriously offering Lone Scouting is a neat option, and it'd be low overhead for national to run, so why not give it a shot? It wouldn't cost much, would appeal to Homeschooling Families or people in areas not served by Scouting.  

Most of us here think that Scouting offers something to young people (socialization, leadership skills, conservation ethics, outdoor skills, life skills). Our goal should be to bring a high quality  Scouting experience to as many youth as possible. For better or worse, the BSA is the vehicle we are stuck with if we want to fulfill the "as many as possible" part. Lone Scouting doesn't check all those boxes, but it's definitely something. 

As for the success or failure of the BSA I always go to the mission statement. "The mission of the Boy Scouts of America is to prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law."  This is extremely hard to measure quantitatively, but not all things worth doing can be measured by quantitative metrics. 

 

Edited August 28, 2020 by Sentinel947

[yknot]

56 minutes ago, dkurtenbach said:

Well, here's a proposition to start discussion on such a topic:  If Eagle Scout rank was used as a measure of success of the BSA, BSA would be a failure.  Eagle Scout rank is designed to be achievable by any Scout -- no special qualities required.  It could be earned by Scouts as young as 13.  Yet only a small percentage of Scouts follow through, despite the iconic status and value of the award.  

I don't know about that. Is Eagle really the penultimate reason why most kids join scouts, or is it something BSA has used to market scouting to parents? I remember standing with my  final AOL den of very excited cubs at crossover listening to welcoming words from our new scoutmaster. They couldn't wait to be scouts. Until he started talking. Sure, he mentioned Philmont and Seasbase, but then it was mostly all about advancement. All about walking the Eagle path. All about what that would mean to help them get into college and how it would help put their resume at the top of any pile when it was time to get a job. The parents loved it. The checkbooks couldn't come out fast enough. The AOL scouts, on the other hand, were not that enthused.  

Almost 100% of the scouts in our unit -- and most of the units around here --  achieve Eagle. Maybe one or two each year don't out of an entire unit. However, while we usually cross over huge classes of AOL scouts (for us), we lose about 75% of them after the first year post crossover. For many youth, the advancement path to Eagle seems boring. A lot of them are not interested in some of the required merit badges because a lot of them are like homework. The advancement to Eagle path in our unit works great for parents who want their scout to be able to put Eagle on their college application. It also works great for the kinds of achievement oriented boys who truly enjoy the advancement process and all that that entails. But for a good number of boys -- like the ones I mentioned in another post that I was so happy to see yesterday, walking around town with fishing poles, on their bikes, and rock skipping -- it is possibly a turn off.

I have been gratified to see so many impressive young men work their way towards Eagle, the best of them under their own steam and not handheld by parents or coaches. I know how much the process has meant to them, and how proud they are of their accomplishments. On the flip side, I've been deeply saddened by the kids we lose because a focus on advancement is not for them. Some of the best scouts I know -- ones that to my mind truly embody the very best character traits of a scout -- have just found the program unappealing. Some of the worst scouts I know have been pushed through to Eagle and the boys see that. I think we need to consider this. 

I have more I'm going to post in response to your long but good post above  in a bit but I wanted to share my thoughts on this specific point. Eagle scout? Is it really what scouting should bet its future on? We often reflexively view it as the gold standard, but I'm torn. Maybe focusing on it is part of our problem.