BSA franchises

[CNYScouter]

(Sorry for the long post it just got away from me)

 

I have say that I agree with you posters that state that policies National set and even policies by a councils SE make, do not have a great an impact on the BSA number decline as some suggest.

IMHO, I see each individual unit having a greater impact on recruiting and the declining number of scouts.

I do agree that some National policies have had some impact on recruiting but the lack of quality units and quality leaders is more of the problem with declining numbers than anything else.

 

When I see units with 70, 80 and 90+ scouts that have no trouble in maintaining these number consistently, it really shows me that if presented as intended the BSA program works, still draws kids in and no change is really necessary.

 

I saw the question asked:

 

Wouldn't raising the quality of volunteers have a much greater impact on the program?

 

So, how can we do this.

I think that there is a clear problem with the way we select our leaders. Currently its left to the COs to select leaders for their units. I just see that in too many cases, this is left to the unit and the first person that agrees to do it is selected with out much thought going into it.

Its not that the method is bad its just that there are way to many hands off COs who do not want to be involved with the running of the units they charter.

 

Training is then left up to the individual to get the suggested training for their position (I know its the COs responsibility but again way too many are hands off)if they can get around to doing it.

I dont think mandatory training is the answer either. I know fully trained leaders who just dont like part of the program so they dont use it. There are also many units who have never seen a successful unit in operation and just dont know how one runs.

 

As we all know Success breeds Success and I would like to suggest the BSA use a successful business model for improving the quality of leaders and units.

 

This would be the franchise concept.

 

With a reference I saw to McDonalds, one of the most successful franchises in the world, I see a great similarity to them and a BSA unit.

 

When you go to a McDonalds (Troop), the location maybe different and you may find one two items on the menu to be different (different specialties or trips), but the core menu (program) is the same. Every McDonalds is managed and run in the same way following a set successful program.

When you walk into a McDonalds, you know what to expect. But when I walk into a scout unit I can say that I have not found 2 units that even come close to resembling each other or have found very few units that are really following the BSA program as intended.

 

How does McDonalds select its managers (SM and CC). You need to work in a McDonalds to learn how it works, you then go thru an interviewing process and if you are selected you attend Hamburger University (SM/CC training). At this time you then become a manager.

 

What happens when one of the franchises decides not to follow the McDonalds program? First, training is retaken to retrain in the deficiencies, if the franchise continues to still not follow the program a change in management is then made, and if this does not work the franchise is pulled.

 

Why does McDonalds do this? It knows that a poorly run unit reflects on the chain as a whole. A person who receives sub-par service or food does not return, not to just that particular restaurant but to any McDonalds. They also tell their friends about the bad service.

 

How does this relate to a Scout Troop? I would like to see the BSA put together a checklist of what is considered a well-run program to be used for a unit to follow and to be used as an evaluation to see how well the program is being run.

 

I would like to see the BSA do BORs or interviews to become an SM or CC. We do this for a Scout to become Eagle and we have to interview for jobs, why not to be a SM or CC? A CO could still take an active role in selecting a leader but with the all too many "hands-off" CO'sit would allow the BSA to have more control over who is becoming a leader.

 

Who would do this, perhaps redirecting our commissioner service for this task? The commissioner service could also use the checklist to evaluate how well a unit is following the program. I see many areas having declining numbers in adults involved and many in the commissioners service, this may be a way to do more with less.

 

Councils can use the checklist to set up or find a troop that can be used as a training or model unit for a SM and CC to work with for a short period to learn how to operate a Troop before taking over in their position. As councils get more units following a successful program, it can expand its training units until each unit has a successful program.

I am not suggesting we do this all at once but for a new unit or as a unit needs to replace a leader (SM or CC) it goes through this process.

 

A few of you may say that we are having enough trouble finding leaders and this would detour this even more. The BSA is losing numbers anyway and IMHO, wouldnt it be better to have fewer, larger well run units than a bunch of mediocre and poorly run units that cant recruit or retain its scouts.

If this type of route is taken, as these troops start drawing in more and more scouts (because their leader have been trained and know how to successfully recruit), they can break off and still stay successful as have been trained and have learned how to follow a successful program.

 

I know this is not perfect but I really think the BSA needs to take a look at the way leaders are selected and trained, along with the quality if the units out there, as there are just way too many poorly run units that are turning kids off to scouting.

 

I have seen many posts suggesting something should be done but have not seen suggestions for a good plan to make it happen.

 

This is just a concept and idea I wnated to throw out there.

 

[SemperParatus]

Just to add another log on the fire for thought...

 

In my other spare time, I am involved as part of a church planting team. Over the past five years, our home church has planted three new congregations, all within a 15 mile radius. With the most recent church plant, we opened the doors with a congregation in excess of 600 families. Our church has experienced phenomenal growth over the past two decades and we have home-grown outstanding leaders that have easily transitioned to the role of Senior Pastor and other roles in our new churches. The best way to spread the gospel is to create new churches. It is painful when a portion of our leadership and congregants are called to be a part of the foundation for a new church, but it is oh so rewarding to watch as folks accept and meet the challenges before them and become a big part of such a meaningful endeavor.

 

Most new scout units are formed because someone either cannot find one that meets their needs, or because a personality clash between adults results in a splintering of factions. In either case, the impetus is in many cases negative.

 

I am wondering if scouting would be better served, if large successful units that are adherents to the BSA model spun off new units as their numbers grow, populating them with adult leaders that are experienced, trained and dedicated to keeping the scouting promise, and scouts of all ages that can be a core nucleus for the new unit. Initially, the new unit would be small, but its programming would attract new scouts and eventually, its growth could likewise birth another unit as well...and so on down the line. In my mind, the best way to spread scouting is to start new units. The best new units are those whose leaders and scouts have experience with successful units.

 

The troop that I serve will no doubt be hitting 100 scouts in a few more years. We have an incredibly talented group of assistant scoutmasters, anyone of whom could easily step into the role of scoutmaster. Wouldn't it be cool to spin-off a new troop of 20 or so scouts, in a postive fashion, to spread scouting's message and reach. It would be painful to see some scouts and leaders join in a pioneering effort to form a new troop, but incredibly satisfying for the new unit members and the old unit in supporting such an expansion.

 

Just a thought.

[Greying Beaver]

Semper Paritus - This is the beginning of a good idea that done correctly, might work. The only problem that I see is the money that parents have sunk into the existing troop - butane stoves, portable canopies, tents, not to mention trailers to haul it all to camp. They do not want that gear split up with another new troop. It would, however, give boys in larger troops who are ready and waiting for leadership positions a ready-made leadership position in the new troop. At the same time, the parents of those boys who are the "levening" for the new troop would go along and to the same thing for the new troop's new parents. They would be able to put into action any training that they have completed. But . . . consider this: These families that go inot the makeup of the new troop need to completely understand that things are not going o be the same in the new troop. A really good troop program is one thing; a new troop is another. Problems are different. Those families going into a spin-off troop need some sort of training to get them through that first year, both youngsters and adults. Money may or may not be a problem. Who does the new troop turn to for some start-up funds? If the old troop used chuck boxes, the "levening" boys and adults are going to want them as well. That means money, time and facilities - that the parents from the old troop may not have. A single chuck box may not be expensive; more than two is. A CO willing to provide seed money is one way to get around this. Our council has a few "para-professionals" whose job it is to gert new troops up and running. I know one of them who works in low-income, predominately minority neighborhoods who works miracles. That includes making Eagle Scouts. the problem is that as soon as he lets them go it on their own, it's even odds that the troop falls apart. That is why trained adults are vital to a new troop. One off-shoot of this is that the "para-professional" has trouble finding CO's, especially church congregations. If the troop doesn't have any boys (okay, majority of the boys in the congregation, that congregation is not willing to give time, resources, and money to sponsor a troop. All the troops in ouyr neighborhood that sponsor troops use those troops as part of their youth ministry. Nothing wrong with that as long as the congregation understands that Scouting is for all boys, and that any boy is welcome to any troop. Finding congregations wanting to be a CO for a troop is the job of the Commissioners. God, please bless'em real good. The program on a national stage may have to go through this condensation before seeing new units spinning off of the larger troops. That is more a local council problem. And that is going to call for exceptional council and district support and leadership. Better it not come to that, but, let's see, what is it we're supposed to be . . . .? Right!

[EagleInKY]

I don't have a comment on the "franchise" concept yet, but I'll comment on Semper's point of planting units. I think it's the right concept, but I believe egos get in the way too much.

 

For example, about 7-8 years ago, we were the only pack associated with an overcrowded school (not sponsored by them, just the only pack that recruited from it). The pack was struggling with 20-25 boys due to leadership. The school district set up a new school, and took about 1/3 of the students away. The district came in and established a new pack. Some of our leaders went nuts, saying they were diluting a struggling program. Well, you know what happened? New leadership took over the pack, and - even with a smaller school population - the pack has multipled three-fold.

 

Now they are planning a new school that will take close to 1/2 of the students away. (Yes, the school is overcrowded again). Again, the district is wanting to establish a new pack, if they can find a sponsor. Some of our leaders are crying foul. But we're up to 60 boys. What's the harm in getting smaller and "retrenching". I'm sure, with good leadership, the pack can rebuild to current numbers.

 

IMHO, too many leaders are trying to build their mega-packs and mega-troops and not focusing on the interest of the whole.

[SemperParatus]

Thanks for your thoughts on my proposal, which I meant purely as a supplement to CNYS' brainstorming...

 

I guess my thinking is that a spin-off is not quite like a start-up. The old troop can provide some seed money (many large troops have a small war chest built up) and equipment donation, loaning, sharing to minimize the financial burden on the pioneers. The new troop comes out of the gate at full speed (after associating with a CO)...it has trained leaders with recent experience in running a quality program, it has a sizable contingent of young men at different ages/ranks with scouting/leadership experience, it has parents that understand the program, it has a support structure of people committed to its success (the old troop), it has some seed money from the old troop. In short, it is a fully functioning, BSA-modeled troop from the get go, capable of reaching more boys quicker than a pure start-up. In my perfect-little world, both the old and the new troop would continue to grow and spin-off more units.

 

Of course, I know there are many areas where the population does not support large multiple units. However, most large urban/suburban areas can. This would be a way of passing on the 'good genes' of successful units.

 

Is it hard to say goodbye to great scouts and scouters that have been a part of the unit for a couple of years? Absolutely. It really needs to be on a volunteer basis, but by sending out our best we can all be part of strengthening the BSA in our area and the country.

 

As far as egos, I guess that is totally dependent upon the folks involved. It could certainly get in the way in the case of scout leaders that are focused purely on increasing their numbers. I think most experienced leaders will admit that at some point the law of diminshing returns does kick in. I suppose the spin-off concept can work for those that define their program based on quality rather than quantity. Its been my experience that units that focus on quality, let the quantity take care of itself. When the quantity can support a spin-off (60-80-100 scouts whatever the number is), why not further share the quality component with the community. In the end, quality units will eventually increase and muscle-out the poor units. Of course, turnover of leaders can have dramatic effects but I suppose it all boils down to mentoring our future leaders.(This message has been edited by SemperParatus)

[SeattlePioneer]

Interesting idea, Semper. But I've never heard of it being done.

 

Is this something DEs should encourage?

 

 

 

Seattle Pioneer

[SemperParatus]

SP,

More so as something that Troop's could consider. I really think it would work best as a reasoned, intentional act of unit leadership based on its specific circumstances.

SP

 

[Bob White]

Actually CNY what you describe is very much how the BSA is organized, using COs as franchises, offering a specific program and set policies and procedures to help establish similar but unique program opportunities, standardized training, mentoring through commissioning services.

 

Here is where the uncontrollable factor is in scouting as compared to McDonalds. McDonalds PAYS their front-line workers to follow the program and can threaten them with the loss of that income if they do not. The BSA has no choice, due to their Charter Concept, but to rely on the individual character of the leaders as selected and approved by the COs. Everything depends on the personal quality of the individual leader. As you can see there are many who volunteer who do not like the scouting program, who refuse to learn the scouting program, or who refuse to follow the scouting program. As long as the COs OWN the units we will forever have this problem.

 

The only hope is to constantly remind the CO just how important selecting the right people are. We need to choose more wisely.

 

 

[madkins007]

I like the idea of 'troop planting'- a strong (but not required) policy of splitting units when they hit some certain mass- say 80 ACTIVE youth just as a starting number.

 

Support the idea with some programs from National/Council, like maybe a couple new positions and some guidelines. Perhaps make the project a leadership option for rank?

 

Parent unit would probably form a planting team of a new SM, new CC, and a few youth leaders. The parent troop offers a starting package of some gear and/or money (with the understanding that it is a LOAN and repayment is expected as the new unit grows.)

 

Ideally, we'd somehow be able to advertise that these are related units, and I can see some sort of 'inter-unit mentoring' occuring as well.

 

 

 

 

As far as improving the leaders, my best suggestion would be to simply require SOME form of training (more than Fast Start ideally) before the badges can be obtained. This would probably require some reworking of the training program, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. It would be nice to figure out some way to require annual recertification as well.

[Bob White]

madkins writes "As far as improving the leaders, my best suggestion would be to simply require SOME form of training (more than Fast Start ideally) before the badges can be obtained. This would probably require some reworking of the training program, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. It would be nice to figure out some way to require annual recertification as well.

 

The trained strip is not earned for completeing Fast Start (no recogognition is earned for Fast Start). The Trained badge represents that the wearer has completed BASIC training for their position of responsbility and is only earned after all basic courses are complete. That can be as few as 5 hours of training or as much as about 25 hours depending on your position.

 

Recertification can be required by the charter organization is they so choose.

 

The thing that is being overlooked with the seeding new troops is that troops are OWNED by a Charter Organization. You cannot take money that does not legally belong to you and use it to start a unit you have no authority to start. As unit leaders you serve your charter organization. You can no more start a new troop elsewhere than the choir director at one church could take the church's money and equipment and send some members to another church to start a choir for them. You belong to your CO your, you serve their program. Starting new units is not the responsibility of unit leaders, it is a function of the District Committee that serves scouting in your comunity.

 

The BSA has no authority to split a tropp or pack any more than they can tell the VFW that their ladies Auxiliary is too large and has to split. It is not the BSA's unit, it is the BSA's program, they cannot tell the unit to split.

 

As Unit Leaders our job is the quality of our next unit meeting not starting units elsewhere. The DE along wioth the membership, training, and commissioners staff have the responsibility to find and develop new Charter Organizations to grow the program.

 

If the District approaches your CO and asks for a donation to help a new unit that is forming and your CO can help that's great. If you are asked by the District to mentor a new leader and you are willing...thats great.

 

If you want to learn how to start new units at new charter organizations then you should ask to join the membership committee of the District Committee.

 

Remember that starting new units has nothing to do with improving the quality of the program, it merely gives more opportunity to more scouts to participate. It still takes selecting the right people in leadership positions for the program to be delivered properly.(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[SeattlePioneer]

Well BW, I'd bet that a substantial majority of Scout units pretty much run their own show with little supervision by the chartered organization. If those units decided they wanted to contribute money or materials to help start another Troop or Pack, many no doubt could do that with authority they already have delegated to them, or could obtain permission from the chartered organization if they thought that was appropriate.

 

 

Seattle Pioneer

[Bob White]

It is nearly impossible to control what people do wrong when it is by their own choice. You can only explain what is right and hope that the character of the selected leaders will guide them to follow the program and procedures.

[madkins007]

Bob White,

 

My thought on the badges would mean that National would make it so you can't get ANY position patch (other than things like Denner or other positions that really do not require training) without completing some training. Make them a restricted item, like rank, OA, or Woodbadge stuff. This would make the 'Trained' strip redundant.

 

Of course, this would also mean that we'd have to get more aggressive about offering training in a way that benefits the units better and faster. Combine Fast Start and part of Basic into this, then create a more advanced program (University of Scouting?) for people interested. Perhaps creating a formal Unit Trainer position (perhaps with stronger ties to the Council training comittee than to the committee?)

 

Overall, I just think we can do a better job of training, and of requiring training as one part of an overall program improvement campaign.

 

[evmori]

Seattle,

I would agree that most CO's have little or no involvement in the Scout unit they charter. And if a unit wanted to "plant" another unit elsewhere, and the CO has given the unit leaders total control over the unit finances, then the unit would be able to "plant" another unit. I like this idea. "Plant" new units from successful units. Good idea.

 

I also like the idea of mandatory training (on top of the Fast Start video) for adult leaders. While there are no guarantees, required training might help.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Greying Beaver]

Re: Adult postion patches not being handed out until after position-appropriate training(s) completed.

 

This would solve a bunch of problems with troops regardless of age. New troops, absolutely. A spin-off troop starting with adults who have been active in the troop as either committee members or supporting the unit by tranporting scouts to and from weekend campouts (bless 'em!) but not trained as SM's could cause some problems in the short run for the unit. A lot can be learned by osmosis, but the leader-specific training should still be required before SM, ASM, or TCC patches are given. Things like the buddy system, two deep leadership, the Patrol Method, that a complete uniform is a Method of scouting, etc., need to be presented in a formal setting by district and council trainers.

 

Because adults serve as SM's, ASM's and TCC for indefinite periods of time ( sounds better than "come and go"), those coming into the positions need to be familiar and comfortable with the positions they are about to undertake regardless of the age of the troop. That means formal training. That lets these volunteers know that the Methods of scouting, such as two-deep leadership, the Patrol Method, and that complete uniforms is a Method of scouting, are proven ways of making scouting the program that it is and not made up on a whim.

 

IMHO, because the SM is the liasion between the troop and the TC, and the TCC is the liasion between the troop and the district, these people should go through position-appropriate training(s) before being awarded: yes, awarded leadership position patches by the district - and make a big deal out of it, too.