YP/Program Quality

[InquisitiveScouter]

2 minutes ago, MattR said:

Suppose a change was made to the commissioner program that created a better learning environment for units. Rather than be advisors at best and a waste of time at worse a commissioner had real responsibility and authority. I'm not looking for heads on pikes so much as servant leadership. Make a real connection between units and the council that is more than "send us money and fill out advancement reports." That would require a big shift in mindset at the council and national.

How about Commissioner also has to sign off on unit charter?? Just exploring an idea...

[CynicalScouter]

18 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

How about Commissioner also has to sign off on unit charter?? Just exploring an idea...

Two problems.

1) My district hasn't had a DC in years, much less a unit commissioner. Not everywhere has commissioners coming out of the ears.

2) The entire idea of the commissioner corp is they are there to assist where they are welcome. Granting them (a volunteer) authority over a unit is fundamentally altering the deal. They already have a bad reputation as Council's spies and enforcers. This would codify it.

That said, district executive or other paid professional might take this on but it creates a conflict there as well. But it may be better than trying to overhaul commissioners into enforcers.

[InquisitiveScouter]

7 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Two problems.

1) My district hasn't had a DC in years, much less a unit commissioner. Not everywhere has commissioners coming out of the ears.

2) The entire idea of the commissioner corp is they are there to assist where they are welcome. Granting them (a volunteer) authority over a unit is fundamentally altering the deal. They already have a bad reputation as Council's spies and enforcers. This would codify it.

That said, district executive or other paid professional might take this on but it creates a conflict there as well. But it may be better than trying to overhaul commissioners into enforcers.

What about those people employed at the regional level... what do they fill their days with???  And could they be tasked to do Unit Compliance visits (inspections) every two to three years? 

[ParkMan]

14 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Two problems.

1) My district hasn't had a DC in years, much less a unit commissioner. Not everywhere has commissioners coming out of the ears.

2) The entire idea of the commissioner corp is they are there to assist where they are welcome. Granting them (a volunteer) authority over a unit is fundamentally altering the deal. They already have a bad reputation as Council's spies and enforcers. This would codify it.

That said, district executive or other paid professional might take this on but it creates a conflict there as well. But it may be better than trying to overhaul commissioners into enforcers.

Yes - the Commissioner service is the red-headed stepchild of Scouting volunteer positions.

They are there to help units, to serve as trusted advisors, and to enable leaders to have a stronger program.  I doubt that most would be able to navigate being both advisor and compliance officer all at once.  I suspect it would kill the commissioner program.

11 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

What about those people employed at the regional level... what do they fill their days with???  And could they be tasked to do Unit Compliance visits (inspections) every two to three years? 

There will be one or two territory employees per 15 councils.  Let's say a council averages 200 units - that's one or two employees per 3,000 units.  If they are always on the road and do three a week - that's 20 years to visit everyone...

What is it that we actually want them to check?  

[CynicalScouter]

6 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

What about those people employed at the regional level... what do they fill their days with??? 

They are about to get laid off if they haven't already with the new territory system to replace areas and regions.

And it makes no sense anyway. Regions (and now territories) are massive swaths of land. Asking them to go drive hundreds of miles all around to sign off on charters? Such visits would be short and cursory.

But let's game that out. The latest data says 51,594 units

NE Region: 12,150 units

Southern Region: 15,450

Central Region: 15,194

Western Region: 8,800

The latest report (2019) was BSA National had 4026 employees. That was in 2019, before the MASSIVE layoffs.

But let's say we assign 100 units per "regional" person. That means you are hiring (and paying for travel expenses for) 515 people. To do what? Come to a unit for 1-3 hours. Talk about YPT and sign off on their charter every year? And since recharter happens around the same time every year, what the really means is having the 500+ people visiting 100 units in a 3 month period (October/November/December).

And it isn't like a business that is open 5 days a week. Those 100 visits would have to be scheduled for committee meeting days or unit meetings.

So you are packing DOZENS of trips in a matter of a few weeks for what? So they can sign a piece of paper?

As I said, if you want to do this, the answer is making the DE's enforcers OR creating YPT enforcer positions in councils. Not "YPT champions". Not volunteers who encourage. Hired compliance people (think health/safety inspectors or inspectors general) whose purpose is to come in and be the bad guy.

That's hard enough to do when the people involved are ALL EMPLOYEES OF THE SAME COMPANY and therefore compliance is a condition of employment.

You think a SM is going to give two rips if a regional person or DE or Council enforcer tells them they are doing it wrong? Of course not.

The only way this works is heads on pikes. SMs removed. Charters not renewed.

It will only take a few to get the message across.

 

[InquisitiveScouter]

5 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

You think a SM is going to give two rips if a regional person or DE or Council enforcer tells them they are doing it wrong? Of course not.

The only way this works is heads on pikes. SMs removed. Charters not renewed.

It will only take a few to get the message across.

Yeah...it's a dog's breakfast having regional take it on. 

But if SM's are removed, all it will do is kill units...

Putting down my crayons for now on this one

[ParkMan]

14 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

Yeah...it's a dog's breakfast having regional take it on. 

But if SM's are removed, all it will do is kill units...

Putting down my crayons for now on this one

Likewise....

But before I do, I just keep wondering what it really is that we are trying to fix.  Are units that non-compliant and if they are, what are the kinds of things they are letting happen.  I'm wondering if instead of adding more enforcement we look at this from a different perspective.

[CynicalScouter]

2 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

But before I do, I just keep wondering what it really is that we are trying to fix.

Well the first part was that 20%+ of leaders were not even YPT compliant until last year.

Second, I suspect we are going to find out soon when we start to get the reports from the TCC about the failures in YPT.

[Eagledad]

I don't know how the YPT started down this direction, but I guess the engineer in me wants to see the data that would drive the discussion down this path. 

Barry

[ParkMan]

3 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

I don't know how the YPT started down this direction, but I guess the engineer in me wants to see the data that would drive the discussion down this path. 

Barry

Lol.   The engineer in me wants to understand what 20% of leaders not being compliant really means and if it really is an issue. 

[CynicalScouter]

1 minute ago, ParkMan said:

Lol.   The engineer in me wants to understand what 20% of leaders not being compliant really means and if it really is an issue. 

It means registered leader who have not even taken YPT.

Take a look at the December 2020 Key Performance Indicators.

2018 = 67.1%

2019 = 87.1%

2020 = 99.9%

In other words, as recently as 3 years ago. 33% of registered adults in all BSA programs hadn't even taken YP training.

So, yea, it is an issue. You can tout BSA's youth protection all day long, but if leaders were not actually REQUIRED to take it and if that requirement wasn't actually ENFORCED, they the YP isn't all its cracked up to be.

For example as Roman Catholic catechist, I literally wasn't allowed to SPEAK in my position as a catechist until I had a copy of my Virtus training in my hand and turned it into my parish.

BSA didn't take YPT seriously if it was OK with 33% of registered adult leaders not being YP trained (the absolute bare minimum for compliance).

Edited March 8, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[yknot]

I think we minimize YP at our peril. All the quandaries outlined here are why many critics claim BSA should not exist -- because it can't keep youth safe. I also don't understand the complaint that YP ruined scouting. What's the big deal about having at least two adults along and that they be trained. I think it's more G2SS that has clipped wings. 

[CynicalScouter]

Just now, yknot said:

What's the big deal about having at least two adults along and that they be trained.

The argument is that scouting = scout led (true) which means scouts allowed to be out on their own completely reliant on themselves and the older scouts. That's not YPT compliant.

[ParkMan]

11 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

It means registered leader who have not even taken YPT.

Take a look at the December 2020 Key Performance Indicators.

2018 = 67.1%

2019 = 87.1%

2020 = 99.9%

In other words, as recently as 3 years ago. 33% of registered adults in all BSA programs hadn't even taken YP training.

So, yea, it is an issue. You can tout BSA's youth protection all day long, but if leaders were not actually REQUIRED to take it and if that requirement wasn't actually ENFORCED, they the YP isn't all its cracked up to be.

For example as Roman Catholic catechist, I literally wasn't allowed to SPEAK in my position as a catechist until I had a copy of my Virtus training in my hand and turned it into my parish.

BSA didn't take YPT seriously if it was OK with 33% of registered adult leaders not being YP trained (the absolute bare minimum for compliance).

Maybe this was the case - but it cannot be the case today.  You cannot register in the BSA without YPT.  You cannot recharter in the BSA with expired YPT.

Yet - YPT has an expiration date.  My council regularly reports YPT compliance numbers.  In those numbers if you have expired YPT, it decreases our percentage.  I don't know the current number, but expect this is true:

• 100% of leaders were YPT compliant in the last year.  You cannot be a currently registered leader if this was not true.
• 80% of leaders are YPT compliant today

People are going to point to the 80% and say YPT is failing.  But is it really? That's my engineer question.

Edited March 8, 2021 by ParkMan
clarified a thought

[skeptic]

Let's face it.  Some here and on other forums will always find reasons to say or intimate negativity towards the BSA, or for that matter, any efforts by people to combat abuse, whether child, gun, spousal, or some other type.  The concept of absolute safety is somehow bandied about as actually possible, yet we all know it is not.  Human nature, or whatever you may choose to call stupidity and nastiness within the human animal will never go away, nor will we ever have foolproof protection from those that choose to do bad things to others.  While striving to improve the percentages, we should also not denigrate the advances.