YP/Program Quality

[Eagledad]

1 hour 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. 

Well thanks. The engineer in me wonders how they got that number. Still, you are right of course. 

 

Barry

[yknot]

2 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

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.

True. But that is ancient history. Some version of two deep has been around since the 1980s. It predates me. Scouting was able to function fairly well for more than 40 years with it. I've never known scouting that wasn't two deep, but I've still seen plenty of units that are almost completely scout led. No, they can't go off and do Lord of the Flies in the woods, but they can still be fairly independent. It seems like a useless point to keep grumbling about. It's not like it's going to go away. It's not like it's going to become less restrictive. It's very likely that some additional requirements may be added. There's obviously still issues with it as have been discussed here. While it's not the sum of what we are, like it or not our entire program will be judged on whether we really are the gold standard of YP.  However, without data, functional IT, consistent application, oversight, etc., etc., we clearly can't say that. And as someone else mentioned, the nature of what we offer really demands that we be head and shoulders above the rest on this subject. 
 

[David CO]

7 minutes ago, yknot said:

While it's not the sum of what we are, like it or not our entire program will be judged on whether we really are the gold standard of YP.  

Not.

[David CO]

2 hours ago, ParkMan said:

 

• 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

 

and 50% of leaders are gone.

[RememberSchiff]

On the topic of YP quality, I would like Council to summary report on safety (including YP) incidents and actions of past year at recharter and during training. Not necessarily names or units unless publicly reported.

Doesn't have to be at the production level of Frank Capra Why We Fight but same idea.

My $0.02,

Edited March 8, 2021 by RememberSchiff
past year

[CynicalScouter]

55 minutes ago, David CO said:

and 50% of leaders are gone.

Just about.

Cub leaders in 2017: 337k.

Cub leaders in 2020: 173k (51%)

Scouts, BSA leaders in 2017: 450k

Scouts, BSA leaders in 2020: 273k (60%)

[InquisitiveScouter]

4 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

On the topic of YP quality, I would like Council to summary report on YP incidents and actions of past year at recharter and during training. Not necessarily names or units unless publicly reported.

Doesn't have to be at the production level of Frank Capra Why We Fight but same idea.

My $0.02,

I asked for the same kind of info on accidents and was told no way, no how.  They feared releasing too much detail and exposing themselves to some kind of liability.  I thought that was BS-A.

National does release accident summaries to help.  I used to brief some of these at Roundtable.  For other reasons, I have been removed from Roundtable presentations

They could put the same thing on the web page for YPT stuff...

https://www.scouting.org/health-and-safety/incident-report/incident-reviews/

[CynicalScouter]

12 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

On the topic of YP quality, I would like Council to summary report on YP incidents and actions at recharter and during training. Not necessarily names or units unless publicly reported.

Yep. A version what are called Clery Act Reports (institutions of higher education) that are reported for review.

For example, right now I can pull up data on Murder/Non-negligent manslaughter, Negligent manslaughter, Rape, Fondling, Incest, Statutory rape, Robbery, Aggravated assault, Burglary, Motor vehicle theft, and Arson.

I can find this out for a particular college OR a particular campus of that college.

I can then see how many resulted in arrests, disciplinary actions, unfounded crimes, and fire statistics (?)

https://ope.ed.gov/campussafety/#/

Edited March 8, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[MattR]

 

9 hours ago, Eagledad said:

I don't see how it can be more "It's mostly just some common place best practices coupled with some awareness of what to look for" than it already is. You don't even see this level of YPT in schools.. We just allowed fearmongers to have too much voice without enough defensive reasoning.

First, the BSA is in a unique position in that adults and youth are together, away from civilization for long periods of time. It seems to me that there is more opportunity for abuse and that we just have to set the bar higher.

Second, if there is a better approach that comes out of this argument then I say use it. Heads on pikes seems to be the only way the BSA knows how to encourage change. Even JTE is a one way street. You fill out the form and you get a grade back. That's it. The motivation is completely external. It's not how quality improvement really happens.

Rather than heads on pikes how about a relationship between the commissioner and the unit key 3 along the lines of how the relationship between the SM and the SPL is, or the SPL and the PL's? Servant leadership would be a great idea. It seems odd that the BSA claims teaching leadership, but doesn't really use it.

But I do agree that this would be a hard push. I don't see it happening and it's mostly just my wishful thinking while I watch the BSA in a proverbial flat spin.

 

[ParkMan]

46 minutes ago, MattR said:

Second, if there is a better approach that comes out of this argument then I say use it. Heads on pikes seems to be the only way the BSA knows how to encourage change. Even JTE is a one way street. You fill out the form and you get a grade back. That's it. The motivation is completely external. It's not how quality improvement really happens.

Rather than heads on pikes how about a relationship between the commissioner and the unit key 3 along the lines of how the relationship between the SM and the SPL is, or the SPL and the PL's? Servant leadership would be a great idea. It seems odd that the BSA claims teaching leadership, but doesn't really use it.

But I do agree that this would be a hard push. I don't see it happening and it's mostly just my wishful thinking while I watch the BSA in a proverbial flat spin.

 

You absolutely could have a conversation between the commissioner staff and unit key 3.  District volunteers just have to listen and then explain the goal.

Of course this would have to start by having professionals and council volunteers actually talk to the unit commissioners.

[qwazse]

5 hours ago, yknot said:

... Scouting was able to function fairly well for more than 40 years with it. ...

If by functioning, you mean steadily losing membership -- especially among older youth, then indeed we've been functioning like some exquisite frog boil.

More seriously, YPT was initially designed so that leaders could chaperon according to a continuum from children who needed the presence of adults to adolescents who were naturally gaining autonomy. It then became a tool for BSA to shed legal liability.  At that point, it became a binary youth vs. adult policy.

21st century YPT is the result of directed litigation. Not the other way around.

[yknot]

1 hour ago, qwazse said:

If by functioning, you mean steadily losing membership -- especially among older youth, then indeed we've been functioning like some exquisite frog boil.

More seriously, YPT was initially designed so that leaders could chaperon according to a continuum from children who needed the presence of adults to adolescents who were naturally gaining autonomy. It then became a tool for BSA to shed legal liability.  At that point, it became a binary youth vs. adult policy.

21st century YPT is the result of directed litigation. Not the other way around.

You could say that's due to YPT. However, you could also argue that's due to a host of other reasons like changing demographics, a rise in other youth activities, and BSA's own ham fisted reactions to emerging social issues. It could also be because of the nonstop marketing of advancement to Eagle over outdoor fun.  A lot of older kids drop out once they Eagle or because they are not into advancement. I don't see how adult involvement is the deterrent because then how do you explain why things like sports, robotics or 4-H are so popular. 

If BSA hadn't implemented YP measures, we probably wouldn't be talking about this today because we'd have zippo members. Liability concerns certainly helped drive that but once BSA realized it was a buffet for child predators, it had to act.  

 

[CynicalScouter]

9 hours ago, MattR said:

Heads on pikes seems to be the only way the BSA knows how to encourage change.

Here's the problem: I WISH it were heads on pikes. We don't even have THAT. Instead, YPT is thrown out there and (fingers crossed) adhered to. There's no effort whatsoever at followup, follow-through, or anything.

Heads on pikes at least has the benefit of being a clear public message: we are NOT going to tolerate non-compliance and units deciding to interpret YPT into nothingness.

[CynicalScouter]

8 hours ago, qwazse said:

21st century YPT is the result of directed litigation.

Yep. I have told my folks that every section of YPT and probably 90% of all of Guide to Safe Scouting is "BSA National and/or a local council got sued for this, so, never do it again."

[ParkMan]

3 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

Here's the problem: I WISH it were heads on pikes. We don't even have THAT. Instead, YPT is thrown out there and (fingers crossed) adhered to. There's no effort whatsoever at followup, follow-through, or anything.

Heads on pikes at least has the benefit of being a clear public message: we are NOT going to tolerate non-compliance and units deciding to interpret YPT into nothingness.

Some constructive ideas:

1. Have a DE do a drop in visit on every unit once a year.  A DE has something like 50 units they are responsible for.  That would mean that they could visit each unit once a year and get a sense of what is going on.

2. A Unit Commissioner should have a monthly contact with the unit.  At least once a quarter, that ought to be a unit meeting visit.  While it's not defined as a compliance check, it also is pretty easy to see if the unit is following basic YPT rules list two deep.

3. The BSA should focus on parents.  The best quality control for the BSA is the parents.  If you train parents on what to look for and provide them a discrete way to raise concerns, then you create another whole set of eyes on the problem.

The BSA needs to show it is serious here, but the BSA also needs to be careful about making the council/unit relationship even more adversarial.  Units that are distrustful of council wall themselves off and make it difficult for others to understand what is going on.  The BSA has a long history of imposing rules and regulations.  Yes, some things should be non-negotiable (such as following YPT rules), but the way we increase engagement on YPT isn't always more hammers and pikes.