The Leaky Pipeline

[Scoutndad]

Nicely said Madkins and I would gladly hold the step ladder for you...lol

[Bob White]

As it turns out there are three major leaks. Two are in the Cubscout potion of the pipe works and one in the Boy Scout.

 

We lose a tremendoud number of Tigers the first year. Largely because these are the least organized dens and least trained leaders. The next big loss is during 2nd year Webelos. This is due to a number of factors, anxiety over moving to a new program, boredom with cubbing, Sewns running out of program from rushing things first year are large contributors.

 

But we also have a huge loss during firt year of Boy Scouting, mostly in units that do not follow the three tier program and lack of a Fisrt Class emphasis program.

 

Fixing one leak will not solve the problem. Stronger unit programs, a closer adherence to the BSA scouting program, and better prepared leadership are the most direct solutions.

[madkins007]

Bob White- I agree with you totally... but I wonder- from what I have seen in the records, the losses have been occuring at about the same places (except, obviously, for Tigers) for years- since at least the 70's and probably earlier as well.

 

If the same basic leaks have existed for years, even with several changes in the programs, etc., can we reasonably expect that things will improve by basically telling people to follow the program more tightly?

 

I believe that in an ideal world, the program would run wonderfully if it were followed correctly (sounds sorta like a Walgreens commercial- "In the town of Perfect...") but in the real world, I am wondering if we don't need to consider some other mechanism for program improvement.

 

 

[Bob White]

We have mechanisms in place now that work when used. If some people will not follow them then what is gained by changing the mechanisms? Will a new working mechanism that still isn't followed be any improvement? Will a method that won't work but will be followed fix anything at all?

 

The solution is not a different method, The methods aren't the problem. The solution is in the attitude and quality of the leaders.

 

If your baseball team can't win a game, changing the game will not make them better baseball players. You either need to improve the players you have, or you have to get players of greater abilities.

 

 

 

[Cubmaster Mike]

In our organization, the responsibility lies directly with myself and the WDLs. We represent the program and we have to initiate the contacts. We use den chiefs and yes, the boys look up to them as great examples. But the parents need to be part of hat decision. That involves our contacting EVERY local troop in our District and the neighboring District (we are next to the border). We put together the recruiting nights and get the boys and their parents out to them. Each troop around us has different qualities (i.e. one is more service oriented, one is more outdoor oriented, etc.) ad each should be considered in turn. We try to get the boys out to visit at least four troops each year of Webelos.

 

Oh yes, we also hold tight to the AOL requirement that they must fill out a Boy Scout application....

[EagleInKY]

I agree that it's a leaky pipeline, and I agree with Bob's assessments of where the biggest issues are. I also like Madkins synopsis. He brings up some great points. But, the reality is, every organization has leaks. Churches, sports, even companies, have leaks. When my son decided to not do coach pitch after tee-ball, I don't think a bunch of coaches got together and were concerned about the leaky pipeline. The reality is that some kids take to an activity and others do not.

 

I agree that a better program, better trained leaders, and better transition will reduce the leakage. A good Den Chief can help, but it's no gaurantee. This year we had an involved Den Chief (maybe not the best, but he seemed to do okay). We only got 8 of 11 Web IIs (compared to 6 of 6 and 9 of 9 the previous two years without Den Chiefs).

 

I'd like to see a much tighter relationship with the Web leaders and the troop leaders. They should be communicating and walking hand-in-hand, especially during those last six months. If they coordinate lots of activities together, wouldn't it seem less of a "drop/add" and more of a "next step". Not sure, but any best practices would be great.

[madkins007]

Bob White said "We have mechanisms in place now that work when used. If some people will not follow them then what is gained by changing the mechanisms?"

 

You do not get out of a rut by digging deeper in the same place. I agree that the basic mechanisms are sound- but if they are not being followed, we need to try something different- either changing the mechanisms OR something around the mechanisms.

 

To use your example of the baseball team- improving or replacing the players are not your only options. You can change the leadership, the coaching/teaching staff, the amount of community or league support, etc. Considering that attendance to baseball has been declining for years, you might also consider changing the very rules involved- maybe improve things for everyone.

 

 

 

Maybe the 'leaky pipeline' really has nothing to do with Cubs or Boy Scouts. Maybe it has more to do with the problems of delivering the program well from National down to each individual Scout. And maybe, just maybe... the blame is not the unit leaders.

[Bob White]

If you are in a rut and you have a perfectly good ladder to climb out with, as you admit, then what do you need another ladder for? If you aren't using the one you were alreday have what is to lead anyone to believe you would use a different one?

 

Leaders need to start using the ladder they have and climb above the rut they themselves dug.

 

If that ladder doesn't get you out then you have grounds to ask for another one.

 

The BSA program works....when it's used.(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[Oak Tree]

Madkins,

 

You're right, it's an interesting thought experiment to consider what changes to the program might be beneficial to the leaky pipeline. And National is surely considering this question, as they seem to constantly make adjustments, small or large, to the program.

 

From the three leaky spots identified by Bob, I'd suggest that the second-year Webelos program would be the easy one to change. If the program is set up in a way that frequently has the effect of having dens be bored with the program, go ahead and change it.

 

But I think you're inevitably going to have leakage around transitions. Every group does.

 

Oak Tree

[evmori]

Has anyone taken into consideration that kids are over scheduled & Scouting is the activity that is dropped?

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Bob White]

Have you ever know kids that will drop the activity thats the most fun? The challenge scouting makes to leaders is to deliver"the best show in town". Anything else and you will lose scouts to something more fun.

 

Scouting is designed to appeal to the nature of scouts at each stage of devempoment. It will work if they get a real scouting program.

 

We can blame mebership lasses to all sorts of things (as we have seen on this forum) parents, school, peer pressure, other activities, the kids themselves, the sun was in my eyes, there was a rock in shoe, I tripped etc. etc. but the botom line is the quality of you r last meeting. That is what will determine if a scout returnes next week.

 

And the adult leaders have total control and responsibility for the quality of scouting that is delivered in the unit they serve.

 

You will never solve any program problem by continually blaming others for it.

 

 

[evmori]

I'll take that as a "no".

 

It isn't always up to the kids. The parents make a lot of the decisions especially for the younger ones. And it is very possible that they want their kids in band & soccer & dance more than they want them in Scouts. Not because they are more fun. Maybe because they require less commitment from the parents. They can drop the kids off & pick them up & not be asked to help out! Possible!

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Prairie_Scouter]

Why is it that it's ok to blame the leaders, it's ok to blame the parents, it's ok to blame the kids, but the program itself is untouchable?

 

I'm not saying the program is to blame, but if we're going to discuss reasons why BSA tends to "leak" Scouts at various points, shouldn't we be able to hold the program up to the light of day just like everything else?

 

My guess would be that there are many possible reasons why BSA loses Scouts at various points along the way, and among those contributing reasons will be the program itself. **IF** there were a problem with the program, that in itself wouldn't be a big deal, because it's fixable. What would be a big problem would be an unwillingness to admit to any potential for problems in the program.

 

The program is very good. It's the result of decades of work and experience, but that doesn't mean it was carved into stone tablets and brought down from Mount Scout. Instead of being so reticent to even admit the possibility, if someone thinks there might be a problem in the program, maybe it'd be interesting to just ask where they think that weakness might be.

[OneHour]

One problem that I have is the fact that the "program" is be trivialized too much in the forum. It is not broken, but then again it is not that easy to implement either.

 

A unit has to have all participants to buy into the program before it really works. For a unit, it has to have a bunch of boys who are interested in scouting period before you can start. It then has to have a set parents who are willing to devote their free time to these boys. Then, a charter org is needed, preferably, one that has a heart in seeing the unit successful. Next, you have to get all of your unit leadership to all of the relevant BSA training and to abide according to its intent. With all of this, you have to make it fun! Simple? Not all the time! For the seven years that I have been with our Pack and the three with the troop, we are doing very well if we could recruit new parents to help out other than the overworked ones. We are doing very well to get 60% of our den or troop leaders to training for their current position! We'll be in good shape if 40% of our committee members are trained ... just getting 40% of the members to attend the meeting is itself a challenge. The boys are stretched thinly between football, basketball, baseball, soccer, swimming, etc. As for parents, all that they want to do is to drop their kids off and pick 'em up later. What? Work? That would be too much too ask of them.

 

I have been reading for a while now about how simple it would be to follow the laid out program and all adult leaders have to do is to follow it. All that I am saying is that it is not that straight forward. Yes, the program is very well laid out. The methods are prescribed. The rules and standards are written. It is easy for a group of like-minded scouters and scouts; as a matter of fact, of the dozen or so troops in our area, maybe two at best are like that. One troop has most of its adult leaders serve the District as well; whereas, in our troop, I'm the only one who shows up to the Roundtable. The program does not work well for a group of disparagingly, diversely minded adults and boys who registered out of curiosity. It is simple for an established unit that has gone through the trials and tribulations of getting the BSA ways implemented and the growing pain. For the rest of the units who are struggling, the interpretations of its leadership corp will be frowned upon, but why does it have to be that way? If it is not a direct contradiction to G2SS and it works to keep the boys interested, then why correct it to make it perfect? Since it inception 10 years ago, our pack has seen 4 CMs, 3 CCs, and two CORs. They all do things differently, outside of the traditional cubbing. Some didn't conform to the program and one did. None violate G2SS. Skimming by, but not directly violating. Has it hurt the pack? No; as a matter of fact, the pack peaks at 132 boys and averages 104 within the 10 years. The pack crosses over on an average 65% of our Webelos.

 

If the first rung on the ladder is too difficult to reach because some of us are "vertically challenged," then the ladder should still be used? The ladder may be the same, but the not all ladder users are the same.

 

I am simply stating that the program is not broken. It can be tweaked to meet the current mindset of the boys to keep them interested. If I were a boy and all that I get to do is arts and crafts in cub scout ... I'll choose sports and other stuffs with the next heart beat. Take a look at the Cub Scout handbooks, these are the arts and crafts of old! When I was the pack's cm, I constantly asked the boys what they liked and what they don't. The answer seems to be the same ... don't like the arts and crafts which are easy to put together by the adults ... don't like to work on advancements ... love the games and camping ... and that's what boy scouts do ... have fun in the outdoor! That's the leaky hole!

 

If the program will only work if all leaders are trained and strictly followed the program, then we need to clone a whole bunch of these great scouters and distribute them! Our pack and troop can use them!

 

 

1Hour

[Bob White]

"Why is it that it's ok to blame the leaders, it's ok to blame the parents, it's ok to blame the kids, but the program itself is untouchable?"

 

Because the only ones who complain about the program are the ones who don't use it. There has never been a single post by someone who actually used the program who said it didn't work. I have never seen a unit that followed the program fold. I have never seen a unit that followed the program lose more scouts than they gained.

 

The only people to complain about the program are those who don't use the program.

 

It's not that the program is hard to do, it is relative simple as educational programs go, but it does take effort. And not ewveryone puts effort into the commitments they make.

 

It's not that poor leaders outnumber good leaders either. yje problem is that poor leaders do more damage to membership than the good leaders can make up for. When a poor leader expects to lose 50% of his new scouts each year and does, it's almost impossible for a good leader to make up for that loss. How do you keep more than 100% of those that join?

 

If the unit that you serve is in trouble the problem...and the solution is with your adult leaders.