The BSA Program, Chartering, and Unit Compliance

[John-in-KC]

As I read the colloquy between Beavah, Bob White, and FScouter, I realized there are two major schools of thought on this board:

 

- The first school of thought is each Chartered Partners' Scouting units are franchisees of Scouting, and that there is no flexibility for deviation whatsoever.

 

- The second school of thought is that the Chartered Partners units buy the right to purchase and use Scoutings program materials in the way that makes the most sense to them.

 

There is evidence to support both schools. To me, the biggest piece of evidence I observe is enforced compliance with the program materials.

 

Let's say I am a for-profit franchisee of the XYZ Corporation. I pay them a fee, either flat cash or percentage of sales. In return, they provide me access to trademarks, training, support materials, and inventory. They also provide oversight, in part to protect the interests of their brand name. If I'm screwing up by the numbers, they can strip away my franchise. Think about some local hotel/motel you know. One year it was a Holiday Inn or Ramada (sm). Then, one day, as the place got older, suddenly it had become something like the "Cattlemen's Inn". The franchisee was no longer willing to meet the cost of compliance, and he lost the right to use the trademark.

 

I see mandated compliance in Scouting at four points: National Camp Standards (which is a safety, liability, and labor law check), Advancement standards, especially at the level of Eagle Scout, youth protection, and commercial use of Scoutings trademarks (see the thread on the Rasmussens in Council Relations).

 

The evidence for the second school of thought is observational. As noted above, there are a few areas where the National Council devotes resources to mandated compliance. In all other areas, compliance is voluntary, and some chartered partners (or their units) interpret that as optional. Scouting also devotes relatively limited resources to modelling Best Practices. Many of us here are Wood Badgers. WB is voluntary. Brownsea (resident NYLT) for the youth??? If we tried to put every "next up" SPL through it, our Council camps would be unable to take on the demand!

 

Perphaps my strongest observational evidence for voluntary use/compliance is the Commissioner's Service. What training in it I've taken so far comes down to being an influence for the unit to self-regulate/comply.

 

I've given my thoughts. What are your considered thoughts on the BSA program, compliance, or enforcement?

 

John

I used to be an Owl

C-40-05

[OldGreyEagle]

At varoius times I have suggested having a Accreditation program, staffed by volunteers, assuring that all BSA polcies and procedures are followed. When I suggested this in the COuncil I serve I was told that what commissioner's do, but alas they don't.

 

Troops wouldnt have to be accredited, it would be their choice. Troops seeking accreditation would fund the program and provide support for it.

[scoutldr]

The charter "contract" is the New Unit Application. That delineates the rules for chartering a unit. Anything else is up to the CO. PS: the contract does NOT say that training is mandatory...only that it will be offered by the Council. If they want it mandatory, then change the contract language.

 

http://www.scouting.org/forms/28-402.pdf

[John-in-KC]

Scoutldr,

 

And since units are new only once, let's also denote the Annual charter Agreement, BSA #12-182.

 

Different Councils have different versions of the agreement online, the latest I found by googling is the Ozark Trails Council, dated 2006:

http://ozarktrailsbsa.org/downloads/annual_charter_agreement.pdf

 

No mention of compliance by either side.

 

SecretDE, if you're out there, is not one of the sales points the Professional Service makes to potential Partners is that Scouting can be flexible???

[FScouter]

The first school of thought is each Chartered Partners' Scouting units are franchisees of Scouting, and that there is no flexibility for deviation whatsoever.

 

Well, youve revealed which point of view you disagree with! (smiley thingy) It deserves to be pointed out however that no one I know about in these forums espouses no flexibility for deviation whatsoever. (another smiley thingy)

 

My observation (in the forums) is that those that advocate using Scouting in the way that makes the most sense spend a lot of effort pointing out perceived flaws in the BSA model. After 98 years I have faith that BSA has already distilled out the program to best practices. It is a constantly evolving model to be sure, and yesterdays best gets morphed into a new best. But discarding todays BSA best practices in favor of home brew just doesnt seem to be the way to go.

[John-in-KC]

FScouter,

 

Please don't put words in my mouth. Honestly, I think one of our collective flaws is we don't have enforced compliance on many of the program elements.

 

- Many Americans in 2008 are clueless about how to live in the outdoors. Even so the current BSA training model does not develop adults to operate in the field. Then, in turn, they can ensure the youth teach themselves safe and proper outdoor practices.

 

- How often have we debated "no adding to, no taking from" in advancement here? How often have we heard of units with trained leaders deviating from the standard, and deciding advancement compliance is optional?

 

- How many times have we recommended a youth attend Council JLT/Brownsea/NYLT, and had a response back that "the two weekends interferes with...?"

 

- How many times have we heard from Unit serving Scouters that their UC is the Invisible Man?

 

You want my opinion? The National Council has no idea on what they want for compliance. Worse, they don't have the resources to enforce compliance in all areas. The result is the systemic hodgepodge we get. The National Council (Professionals and volunteers alike) puts its limited resources against things which they feel they must protect.

 

Now you have my opinion.(This message has been edited by John-in-KC)

[Beavah]

Yah, F, thanks for da emoticons, eh? You can make 'em by putting a : next to a ) like : ) and it just comes out like magic! A ; and a ) works . So does a : and a ( .

 

John, I honestly don't think there's that much of a dispute. I think all da regulars here for the last year or two recognize that the BSA's business model is delivery of program materials through licensing arrangements. That means the BSA should do their best job to make a coherent, well-thought out program, and by and large they do. Dat's why we all use it, eh? That also means that once the program is licensed to a council or a community organization, it's theirs to implement and make their own. All da good folks at the National level understand and support that. It's a central feature. It's how you get the Catholics to start a minigoogle of new Venturing units and such. It's also how you protect National's assets when someone in a council does bad to a lot of kids or mismanages funds.

 

Now, in my experience folks involved at da unit level are proud of their units, eh? That includes most district-level and some council-level folks whose "on the ground time" has been primarily with one unit. Each person thinks he/she does a great job. And they often do! What gets tricky is when they go just a bit farther and start thinkin' their way is da right way and the only way. In my experience that's when they stop learnin' and growin' and become a bit of a pain. Those folks tell other people to do it their way without first askin' where the other guy is startin' from, or where the other guy might even have a stronger program than they do.

 

Me personally, I think the two schools of thought on this board turn more on a different assumption. They turn on whether our fellow volunteers are good people to be trusted, or whether they're screw-ups who need to be dealt with. No doubt, there are a few screw-ups out there. And whether yeh believe it or not, I'm among da first to take 'em to task. They say I get downright scary . In my experience, though, they're really very very rare. Good people who occasionally screw up, or who are respondin' to a situation I don't fully understand as best as they know how - those are a lot more common.

 

If yeh really think someone is a screw up, da proper answer really is "get with the program or get out," and the CO should be havin' that conversation with 'em. Just last month I helped a CO escort a SM to the door in just that way, eh?

 

But for da other 99.9% of the time, anybody puttin' on olive and tan, or grey and green, are really good people. They have their quirks and their limitations, like all of us. But they're tryin' to do what Barry Eagledad describes - they're tryin' to use the program materials to do the best job they can for kids, and are constantly findin' places where somethin' isn't working for them in some area and they need to try something different.

 

That's the same thing that we do in da BSA at the National level, eh? Da program hasn't been some carefully refined and adjusted thing slowly improvin' for the last 100 years. We've tweaked here and there, messed some things up completely and gone back to where we were before, had folks with agendas or foibles insert things they liked that turned out not to be that effective. And Boy Scoutin' Division Program is a committee, eh? It thinks and acts like a committee. Doesn't always have a uniform vision, because folks are comin' from different CO's and regions and backgrounds, and they all remember their troop.

 

So I like assumin' that the volunteers are our friends and our biggest asset, and trustin' 'em. Which means not takin' materials that are designed to be helpful and friendly and usin' 'em as a club to whack 'em with. Order of the Arrow is the only nationally approved Boy Scouting Division honor society, but yeh gotta love those Mic-o-Say guys .

 

Beavah

 

[AvidSM]

BSA's lack of oversight breeds rouge units that do things their own way. Some with wise and experienced leaders who can make changes for the better. And, others who think they know what they are doing, but actually have no clue. If you choose to use scouting's program materials in the way that makes sense to you, how would you know which one you are - the fool or the wise man?

 

If you choose to play it safe and not deviate, you may be doing things stupid, but at least it BSA certified stupid.

[Beavah]

BSA's lack of oversight breeds rouge units that do things their own way

 

Yep, Avid. That's the way it works, and is designed to work.

 

Da BSA provides materials, and every unit implements Scouting in its own way. No rogue units, just units.

 

It's a system that puts its faith in the people, not in the central office.

 

B

 

[Gold Winger]

" When I suggested this in the COuncil I serve I was told that what commissioner's do, but alas they don't."

 

Even if they do, there's no real authority do say, "You can't do that!" and have it stick.

 

"It's a system that puts its faith in the people, not in the central office."

 

Which allows for Eagle mills and troops that add or subtract requirement so that everyone is playing by differing sets of rules.

[Beavah]

Which allows for Eagle mills and troops that add or subtract requirement so that everyone is playing by differing sets of rules.

 

Yep.

 

Could be tighter. Then it'd be a lot smaller.

 

Can't say that any other youth organizations are that great at "standardization" either, eh? Da schools have certainly tried, with a lot more money and a paid staff.... and very little success. Still plenty of grade inflation and "add and subtract" eh?

 

I reckon the BSA does a fine job by comparison.

 

Beavah

 

[Bob White]

Hi John, Lots of miisconceptions to talk about here but before I start could you help me out. You wrote "I see mandated compliance in Scouting at four points: National Camp Standards (which is a safety, liability, and labor law check), Advancement standards, especially at the level of Eagle Scout, youth protection, and commercial use of Scoutings trademarks (see the thread on the Rasmussens in Council Relations).

 

National Camp standards, Advancement, Scouting Tademarks.

I only count three areas. What do you see as the fourth?

 

Thanks

BW

 

 

(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[hotdesk]

The first thing that I see is that units operate according to what their adult leadership wants. If the Committee Chairman and Scoutmaster see the need for an adult lead troop then that's the way it's going to be. If the Committee Chairman and Scoutmaster are willing to work at establishing a boy lead troop than that's the way it will be.

 

Most chartered organizations don't really spend enough time around the unit they charter to see the end result. They simply invite the troop to a couple of their functions (ie; Scout Sunday for Churches). They may also ask that the unit do some community service for them. As long as it gets done they won't care who directed it, the scouts or the adults.

 

National Camp Standards are simply for scout camps to make sure that Council's run them accordingly. As far as advancement standards that's true. Council's require that all advancement be placed on the correct forms so that it can be checked against their records. I would hope that if a troop was going to encourage a scout to advance that they would do it according to BSA policy. I'm not quite sure how youth protection helps create standardization. Youth Protection is full of common sense things that all adult leaders should follow to keep themselves out of trouble.

 

So from my experience troops operate more accordingly to the result of what their Committee Chairman and Scoutmasters want. The adult leadership takes volunteer training and are free to interpuert it as they want to. Even with my district increasing Commisioner visits to units they have not to provide any advice or comments that help us fit BSA Standards.

[scoutldr]

Wasn't there a saying, "I'd rather be dead than rouge"? Or was that "red"...same thing I guess.

 

The annual charter agreement says that the council agrees to provide camping facilities...is that nullified if the SE decides to sell off the council camp to pay his salary?

[OldGreyEagle]

"Can't say that any other youth organizations are that great at "standardization" either, eh?"

 

let see, hear pretty near my neck of the woods is Williamsport, Pennsylvania and every year this community hosts an international organization, The Little League World Series. Teams from all over the country and world meet here and guess what? They all play three strikes and your out, four balls is a walk and three outs in a half inning. BTW, they all wear complete uniforms as well. AND, the adults who make all this possible are volunteers as well. No one is a paid little league coach, they get trained and apply the same standards.

 

Then there is Pee Wee Football. The fields are the same length, width and goal posts the same. The uniforms are well uniform, Offisides is offisdes and pass interference is well based on a ref's judgement and I am not sure that is standardized anywhere, muchless the NFL. Pee Wee football is staffed by volunteers.

 

So, when you say youth groups are not good at stanardization, which groups do you mean?