quality, commissioners, and more, oh my

[ParkMan]

4 hours ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

This is what the Commissioner Corps is supposed to be for.  And, in all the councils I have been in, it has been sorely lacking.  I have some thoughts on the reasons for this.  What are yours, and how could we fix?

In our council, recruiting and developing Commissioners is an afterthought.  Yes, Commissioners constantly say they'd like to recruit more Commissioners - but a district is lucky to see one new Commissioner a year.  Ongoing training and mentoring for Commissioners is sparse.

If you want to fix this, Councils need to make recruiting and developing Commissioners a focus area.  All hands need to be on deck in identifying quality Commissioners.  The professionals need to participate in this process as well.

Commissioners should be activly developed and should be part of the process whenever a professional contacts a unit.  Further, when a Commissioner identifies a unit need, the rest of the team - be it volunteer or professional - needs to help in solving the unit's issue.

Edited Saturday at 04:48 AM by ParkMan

[BetterWithCheddar]

13 hours ago, Tron said:

I am starting to believe that the #1 problem is quality control. So many bad units run by bad leaders. How many kids join, have a horrible experience, quit, and never come back? 

This definitely ranks up there with the top problems, but what are you doing to do? As much as we claim Scouting is a youth-driven program, we all know it's parent-driven. A program is only going to go as far as volunteers are willing to take it. As a Den Leader, I spend lots of invisible hours and dollars (my own money) to help the Pack. And I'm just one guy - we're fortunate to have a good group of parents that help with our program (but it can be exhausting).

One of the reasons why travel sports have grown in popularity vs. Scouting is that they are less work for most parents. Sure, they cost 4x as much as Scouting, but I get to just show up and be a dad.

[Eagledad]

On 11/15/2024 at 2:42 PM, Tron said:

I am starting to believe that the #1 problem is quality control. So many bad units run by bad leaders. How many kids join, have a horrible experience, quit, and never come back? 

A lot. But it’s not new. As we’ve discussed before, over 50% of  Webelos 2s don’t crossover into troops. Add in the number of cubs that quit in the other 4 years. And just about all that is on bad adult leadership. I’m guessing nationally that at least 60% of cubs don’t don’t finish the cub program.

The troop program has the problem that troops loose more first year scouts than any other year in the BSA program.

BUT, to be fair, most bad leaders are parents with average skills. The Cub program is over burdened and overly complicated for parents with average skills. The training and professional support doesn’t supplement these parents enough to bring their skills up to lead a quality program.

Parents with skills for a quality program typically were scouts as a youth. Especially in troops.

The Cub program needs an overhaul.

Barry

[Eagle94-A1]

On 11/15/2024 at 7:06 PM, InquisitiveScouter said:

This is what the Commissioner Corps is supposed to be for. 

On 11/15/2024 at 6:35 PM, fred8033 said:

Agreed.  Quality control is a major issue.  ...

Units have such different personalities and habits.  Leaders are even more varied....

Former commissioner here. Agree the Commissioner Corps is suppose to be about quality control. But you also need Scouters who are willing to acknowledge they have weak programs, and be willing to listen to advice. Sadly I have encountered  such Scouters over the years who refuse to see the weakness of their program, and refuse to change. Commissioners can only coach and advise. they have no authority to implement change in a unit.

I had one such unit. After over a year of being ignored, I stopped trying. Successor commissioners to that unit, including one who knew the SM well as they were ASMs together at one point, were also ignored.

 

[InquisitiveScouter]

Somehow we need to cultivate a culture of the Pursuit of Excellence.

I, too, meet scads of Scouters who are unwilling to admit that they need some changes to improve their Scouting.

Good luck overcoming this psychological barrier. 

[jcousino]

9 hours ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Former commissioner here. Agree the Commissioner Corps is suppose to be about quality control. But you also need Scouters who are willing to acknowledge they have weak programs, and be willing to listen to advice. Sadly I have encountered  such Scouters over the years who refuse to see the weakness of their program, and refuse to change. Commissioners can only coach and advise. they have no authority to implement change in a unit.

I had one such unit. After over a year of being ignored, I stopped trying. Successor commissioners to that unit, including one who knew the SM well as they were ASMs together at one point, were also ignored.

 

getting any level of scouts to admit it needs help is hard enough. Both paid and volunteers. the few high functioning units i have seen over my years where one,s that had a high functioning scoutmaster that keep the group together and would leverage other adults as needed. most where past upper level  managers/owners. 

[Eagledad]

2 minutes ago, jcousino said:

getting any level of scouts to admit it needs help is hard enough. Both paid and volunteers. the few high functioning units i have seen over my years where one,s that had a high functioning scoutmaster that keep the group together and would leverage other adults as needed. most where past upper level  managers/owners. 

Well said.

Humility is the fertile ground for the growth of integrity.

Barry

[jcousino]

1 minute ago, Eagledad said:

Well said.

Humility is the fertile ground for the growth of integrity.

Barry

unfortunately a lot of ground has been made rocky by false vanity 

[MattR]

I think you guys are being a bit naive on this one. If there's one thing I've learned about the scouting program it's that motivating scouts about character only works on those that essentially already get it. If a scout doesn't want to be bothered about character then it's a really hard slog. So either the parents believe that character is important or, on occasion, a scout's parents are bad enough that the scout sees a need for good character. But that's not to say that there aren't lots of scouts or their parents that want to get Eagle. And there lies a big problem. Absolutely vanity is preventing improvement. But greed is oh so much worse. If you really want to improve program quality then remove the biggest source of greed, rank advancement. Be a scout because you believe in the ideals, not that you're going to get a better job. I got so tired of listening to scouts that, when asked why they were in scouts, said first that they were going to get a better job or into a better university or it would make their resume look better. It used to be very rare when they said that. It always used to be about fun, friends and the outdoors. But it has changed. I was shocked the first time I heard something about payback. The last time I asked a group of scouts why they were in scouts it was close to half that said they were going to get something from earning a badge. Maybe it's my town that has changed but I doubt it. TikTok, likes, influencers, search algorithms ... our lexicon has changed to that of greed and dopamine hits. This program used to work because most of the volunteers really believed in the fundamentals. They believed in it so much that they wanted to make it work. Quality would have been an easy sell then. But that has eroded over time. There are still people that believe in the the ideals but there needs to be a critical mass of those people in order for a unit to deliver a good program, where the idea of improving quality is even viable. My guess is that most units feel they're delivering a quality program if some kids are getting Eagle patches. And it makes sense because that's how the program is sold.

Character is what you do when nobody is looking. It's not rank. It's not NESA. It's not OA. It's not a MB sash. It's not data in a database. It's what you do with your patrol when no adults are around. So, the first thing to do to make a quality program is to focus on a program with character and remove all the other distractions. Eagle is the biggest distraction. This reminds me of the Woodbadge game Win All You Can. Eagle is just goading people to do bad things. But they never come out and say it. It used to be that it was a method and could be used to develop character but that script has flipped.

But that will never happen.

 

 

[fred8033]

On 11/15/2024 at 6:06 PM, InquisitiveScouter said:

What are yours, and how could we fix?

Commissioner corps?  District commissioners have worked okay, but I've never, never seen unit commissioners work well.  IMHO, 98% of the time unit commissioners is a broken concept ... for many, many, many reasons.

The quality issue is because scouting is conceptually simple, but the implementation is way overly complex; too complex for most leaders.  Worse, the program delivery has far too much variety.  The program would do better if it focused more on getting the scouts outside and being active.  Worry less about leadership and character.  Instead, focus on being active.  Then, leadership and character comes as a result of being active.

Edited Monday at 01:51 PM by fred8033

[InquisitiveScouter]

14 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

Commissioner corps?  District commissioners have worked okay, but I've never, never seen unit commissioners work well.  IMHO, 98% of the time unit commissioners is a broken concept ... for many, many, many reasons.

The quality issue is because scouting is conceptually simple, but the implementation is way overly complex; too complex for most leaders.  Worse, the program delivery has far too much variety.  The program would do better if it focused more on getting the scouts outside and being active.  Worry less about leadership and character.  Instead, focus on being active.  Then, leadership and character comes as a result of being active.

Agreed!

And I think we would do better if we set the expectation that adults will learn Scout skills as well.

Most adults I know cannot tie the seven basic knots in the Scout Handbook (much less do any lashing), use a map and compass to find their way, sleep outside in less than 40 degree weather, go backpacking, or, more generally, know most of the things in the Scout Handbook that Scouts have to know (or know what "right" looks like).  And they are afraid to admit it and then go learn.

What happened to Be, Know, Do?

[SSScout]

The Amish have a saying (they have lots of sayings):  Show me what a man does with his hands that I might know his heart.

One of my observations  concerns the youth I encounter , both in and out of Scouting.  Hand manipulation.  Tying knots that HOLD.   If one is concerned about a small thing like a shoe lace tied so it won't come undone, that person might also be concerned about other things, done right, so they won't come undone.  The standards we set. "Oh, that's good enough."  Is it?   The idea that the Scout/youth can be taught, trusted, to do what is necessary, not just "good enough" (whatever that may mean).  

Kids in first grade that don't know their right from their left, over versus under....  I see it when Cubs try to fold the US flag in that triangular tradition.  It takes time, and I often have to shoo the father away from the Cub who is really experimenting with his hands, seemingly for the first time....  

The  misguided EBoR  that asks an Eagle candidate to tie a Bowline...   If they can't tie it then, it does no good to ask them, and it is not a failure of the Scout, but of the Troop.  

[InquisitiveScouter]

12 minutes ago, SSScout said:

The  misguided EBoR  that asks an Eagle candidate to tie a Bowline...   If they can't tie it then, it does no good to ask them, and it is not a failure of the Scout, but of the Troop.  

I have no problem asking Eagle Scout candidates to demo Scout skills, or show some Scout knowledge.  But, usually, it is a follow-on to a question about program and experiences.

"Jenny, what are some things you liked about Scouting?"

"I loved Pioneering Merit Badge, and learning to work with rope to build things."

"That's great!  Did you share some of these skills with the other Scouts in your Troop?"

"Yes, I was our primary Troop Instructor for whipping, knots, and lashings!"

"OK, right!  I see on your Eagle Application that is one of the Positions of Responsibility you have cited for your rank requirements.  Would you be willing to tie a bowline for me?  Here's a piece of rope."

"Sure!" <Ties the knot>

etc etc etc

It is not a test for the Scout, and, if the Scout cannot tie it, I would certainly not hold her up unless the candidate said something like "I never learned to tie a bowline." (Then it would be about not ever completing a requirement, versus not being able to remember how to do it.)

It is a measure of the program and Troop culture, and not necessarily a measure of the Scout.  "Its purpose is to determine the quality of the Scout’s experience and decide whether the requirements for the rank have been fulfilled."

 

[Tron]

On 11/15/2024 at 6:06 PM, InquisitiveScouter said:

This is what the Commissioner Corps is supposed to be for.  And, in all the councils I have been in, it has been sorely lacking.  I have some thoughts on the reasons for this.  What are yours, and how could we fix?

I think there are 2 problems with the commissioner corps; First there is no enforcement so the efforts of the commissioner can become a huge waste of time (If a unit repeatedly gets low evaluations or refuses to meet why are council executives renewing those charters?). Secondly to be blunt there are too many scouting bro's scratching each others back. When a commissioner witnesses YPT and GTSS violations they need to thrown the bad leaders under the bus, not sweep the issue under the rug. 

On 11/16/2024 at 7:24 PM, Eagledad said:

A lot. But it’s not new. As we’ve discussed before, over 50% of  Webelos 2s don’t crossover into troops. Add in the number of cubs that quit in the other 4 years. And just about all that is on bad adult leadership. I’m guessing nationally that at least 60% of cubs don’t don’t finish the cub program.

The troop program has the problem that troops loose more first year scouts than any other year in the BSA program.

BUT, to be fair, most bad leaders are parents with average skills. The Cub program is over burdened and overly complicated for parents with average skills. The training and professional support doesn’t supplement these parents enough to bring their skills up to lead a quality program.

Parents with skills for a quality program typically were scouts as a youth. Especially in troops.

The Cub program needs an overhaul.

Barry

I think this goes back to service. At the cub level the parents can't just disappear once their scout crosses to a troop. We need a culture of lingering at the pack to pass on knowledge, hold hands a little, help those new parents get their feet under them. Most cub packs are like starting a new business with all new employees year-over-year.

On 11/17/2024 at 1:03 PM, InquisitiveScouter said:

Somehow we need to cultivate a culture of the Pursuit of Excellence.

I, too, meet scads of Scouters who are unwilling to admit that they need some changes to improve their Scouting.

Good luck overcoming this psychological barrier. 

I think a good scout executive can fix this in every council by treating JTE/Quality Unit/Whatever the new program as mandatory to recharter, and publicly posts the scores. If units get caught lying on their JTE, yank the charter. How many packs and troops would fix their problems in a heartbeat if they had to deal with parents that really knew what was going on in a unit? 

An alternative, every January districts should have to run a class for AOL and perspective new parents on how to identify properly functioning units. Think of an AOL parent who gets a 15min crash course on patrol method and how they would steer their kids to units?

[Eagledad]

7 hours ago, fred8033 said:

Commissioner corps?  District commissioners have worked okay, but I've never, never seen unit commissioners work well.  IMHO, 98% of the time unit commissioners is a broken concept ... for many, many, many reasons.

If the unit commissioner isn't working, it's the DE's fault. I have seen districts with great Commission Corp, and it's a beautiful thing to watch. However, the DC's job is complicated and requires above-average skills and training. Most districts don't recruit people capable of developing and using those skills.

7 hours ago, fred8033 said:

The quality issue is because scouting is conceptually simple, but the implementation is way overly complex; too complex for most leaders.  Worse, the program delivery has far too much variety.  

Yep. In the earlier days, before 1990, 80% of unit leaders were scouts as a youth. So, they walked knowing more about the game than the purpose. They basically stepped into the position running, and the implementation wasn't overly complex. Today's unit is lucky to have 25% leaders with a youth scouting experience. Training just doesn't meet the need for new adult leaders without a youth scouting experience. 

7 hours ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

Agreed!

And I think we would do better if we set the expectation that adults will learn Scout skills as well.

Most adults I know cannot tie the seven basic knots in the Scout Handbook (much less do any lashing), use a map and compass to find their way, sleep outside in less than 40 degree weather, go backpacking, or, more generally, know most of the things in the Scout Handbook that Scouts have to know (or know what "right" looks like).  And they are afraid to admit it and then go learn.

What happened to Be, Know, Do?

It's not so simple. Learning the skills on your list, much less knowing when to use them, takes a long time.

One-year first-class scouts are typically terrible with skills. Mostly because a program that encourages earning First Class in one year isn't a good skills program anyway.

I've trained and counseled a lot of scoutmasters without a youth scouting experience, and most quit in a couple of years, realizing they were not right for the job. However, I believe they would have been fine if they had been willing to delegate skills they lacked to others. I had the skills but rarely needed them because I was a delegator and liked to get other people involved. And, there are very few skills adults need to know that older scouts can't do themselves. But, in almost every case of the scoutmasters I counseled, the scoutmaster took on the responsibility because they wanted to be head honcho, and the responsibilities didn't look hard. Their ego was the problem. 

The program has a big challenge today because most of the leaders they get today don't have an understanding of the program from youth experience, so they see it from a different perspective. Typically, it is not a perspective that is fun for the youth. Also, the program has changed in the last few years, so its newer identity is not attractive to the last generation of scouts. My 37- and 40-year-old sons aren't interested in being leaders because what they see doesn't appear like the program they had in the late 90s. 

Barry

Edited Monday at 09:33 PM by Eagledad