Eagle Project Approvals / Reviews

How complete / comprehensive a project plan do you require for your life scouts' Eagle project plans in your District?

Some background: I am a SM of a large troop (60+ boys), and have been involved with Eagle Project reviews / approvals for the past 5 years at the district and troop levels. In our district, project reviews / Eagle BORs happen once per month at the district level. Projects must use the NESA Eagle Scout Leadership Service Project Workbook, and they must be approved in advance before any work / fundraising is done. I have no issues with any of that. The problem seems to come in the form of project approvals. District requires a large amount of detail be present in the Workbook plan, including:

1. A full list of each and every item that will be used in the project, including quantities (think "126 1-1/4 galvanized flat head nails", not just listing "box of nails" or "fasteners").

2. A full list of a tools / equipment that will be needed, most of which are borrowed by the scout.

3. A schedule of the project including number of scouts / adults for each day, what tasks are planned, how many hours each will work, and what the total manhours are for each day.

4. What the anticipated total manhours are for the project as a whole.

5. A full cost estimate, with actual prices from local stores inclusing tax and shpping if needed.

6. A discussion of all fundraising plans including a "Plan B" in case the main fundraising fails or is insufficient.

Now don't misunderstand me, I think all these things are excellent to have in a plan, as it really helps the scouts to implement their project, but this generally results in a project plan that is 5-8 pages long in planning write-up, plus tables, plus pictures. As a result, several things happen:

1. The project plans become onerous for many scouts who do not like to write / type, and they lose enthusiasm for the project in the planning stage.

2. Many project plans are denied because of lack of detail, and the scout is forced to wait a month before they can try again to get it approved. (We are trying to deal with this via email reviews / approvals after the initial in-person review)

3. The approval process itself can be long, sometimes taking 45 minutes - 1 hour - almost the time a full Eagle BOR takes.

Talking with some of the other District Advancement Committee members, there are concerns with this process: Are we asking our 15-17 year old life scouts for too much in requiring this amount of detail? OR will their projects fail during implementation if we reduce this planning requirement, and just let them present a more general plan that may be missing some elements?

Opinions? Relevant experiences?

Hmmm...

The boy must have to write very small to fit all that into the lines provided in the workbook. So after being told his plan is not detailed enough, the question for him to ask is why the workbook doesn't have enough lines.

You can search for some past threads on this topic and you'll see there's quite a variety.

Our district does require

1. A complete list of items - the assumption appears to be that you're going to have to go to the store and buy them, so you need to know how many to buy. "Lots" isn't sufficient.

2. A complete list of tools, yes. This isn't so bad.

3. An estimate of Scouts/time. This is purely an estimate. I just encourage Scouts to give it their best guess without spending too much time thinking about it.

4. Total anticipated man-hours. Just add up #3.

5. A full cost estimate - yes, this is required and seems pretty reasonable, although I'm not sure we'd need tax or shipping to be itemized separately.

6. There just needs to be some fundraising plan that will work.

If you don't like to write or type, the plan is not going to be fun, that's true. Our district has recently moved to an email review which gets done ahead of the official review. That drastically shortened the process you describe, which is what our district used to have as well. It used to be quite rare for a Scout to get approved on the first review, but now it's rare not to be approved, and the process is much shorter.

Somewhere along the line deep in District Lore we picked up the notion that the Eagle Project Planning should be complete enough if the Scout could not complete the project, another scout could pick up the plan and follow it to completion

Our Eagle board seems to run just like yours with one exception..

They expect the plans to have all listed in a best guess, borrowed equipment is what you are planning to ask for to make sure you are thinking things through but it is not a guarentee you get exactly what is on your list (ie you can list to borrow rakes, shovels etc with no count.. You may ask and people bring 3 rakes and no shovels.. Now this may become something the Eagle canadate will right up about what did not go as planned, and how they worked around it.)

Hours are usually off.. Some have too few to show true leadership, others have too large a project and they guess 100 hours when the board can see 500+ hours.. To the underachievers (though who have two small a project to be consider worthy), the board will work with them & add on to the project.. To the overacheivers, they will make sure they realize the time committment, and most still are gung-ho to do it.. But, if not then it may be something that needs to go back to the benefactors of the project to see if the scout can do only 1/3.. (Hard to do if the item is a deck, but easier to do if it is building 100 picnic tables, to reduce the count to 25 for your project and the other 75 will need to come from other contribution or volunteers.)

An example is this past BOR a scout can with a project to build a small horseshoe pit.. He was not denied, but before he left his project grew to the horseshoe pit, and organizing the first tornament (and some sort of fundraiser for the thing too)..

Scouts are usually not turned away by the board, but their project may be modified.. Board is not looking for perfection, but that the scout has thought ahead and is not going to just "wing-it"..

You might already do this, but we have our Life Scouts come to a committee meeting and do the presentation in front of the committee, we aren't horrible, but I am told if they make it through our process, then they will get through the Districts' project review just fine..

Your district advancement committee is not asking for too much. The guideline I know our district goes by is that if the scout fell violently ill on the day of his project, it should be laid out and planned so thoroughly that any shmuck could pick up the project book and lead the project.

The object here isn't to discourage the Scout, the object is to give them a real and applied understanding of what's required to undertake a project in the community. It's a valuable skill that can only be learned by doing, and we want to know every single Eagle Scout is both able and willing to see things that can be done in their communities when are grown men, and then undertake any sort of project to make a difference.

If anything, we're still shielding the boys far too much from the horrors of city, county, and state governments...

Frank,

I think we're the victims of a "project development" town. Half the folks around here make their dimes cranking out 100 page proposals. When I showed my son and some of his buddies my project workbook (3 pages typed doublespace, with a hand drawn sketch on the front) he just shook his head in disgust.

"Somewhere along the line deep in District Lore we picked up the notion that the Eagle Project Planning should be complete enough if the Scout could not complete the project, another scout could pick up the plan and follow it to completion"

We use the same standard, and it still comes down to level of detail / vision. Is it enough to say: My project is to build 6 picnic table for my church, placed in the back, with all the materials paid for by the church.

Or, do we kneed to know every detail about the project, including the who, what, when, where, and how of the picnic tables with full design and materials specs, labor forecasting, punch lists, and OSHA heatlth and safety requirements. Is this documentation really necessary for a life scout to "plan, develop, and give leadership"?

-I am playing devil's advocate here, as I am an engineer and like to see the detail -

"Somewhere along the line deep in District Lore we picked up the notion that the Eagle Project Planning should be complete enough if the Scout could not complete the project, another scout could pick up the plan and follow it to completion"

I've often wondered about this too. It's a pretty universally accepted statement. BUT, can we hold up a scout because they don't provide that level of detail even if we think they have good grasp of their project?

While it seems like a good idea (documenting such that another scout can complete the project from the plan), I've never found it in BSA requirements or the Eagle Scout Leaderhip Service Project Workbook. The ESLSPW requirements are complete by definition of it being the authoritative document. But it doesn't mention that level of detail. Also, it doesn't have the space or format for such a detailed write up.

I'm not against it really. I am curious though when I see obstacles that can hold up a scout that are not based on explicit BSA requirements.

How does a project "fail"? If the goal is to provide a service to the community, what does failure mean? If your project was to collect 100 winter coats but you only collected 99 is that a failure? 98? If you are organizing volunteers to help work with underprivileged kids what is a failure? Part of the problem is that Eagle projects have come to be viewed the way NASA looks at a moon mission. If success/failure is a big concern, I think you need to rethink your definition of community service.

But to your specifics -- if the Scout gets hit by a bus on the way to start his project, tell me who is going to pick it up and complete it for him? If that is the standard, why don't we require a complete line of succession to be listed in the proposal? Of course this is just a nonsense thing adults use to get Scouts to write these insane proposals. Does anyone write proposals this way professionally? I'm sure some professions do, but more likely proposals give general proposals and count on the competence of the folks implementing to proposal to figure out the details.

And where in the overall Scouting program do we teach this level of project planning? I'm the counselor for a number of the building trades-oriented merit badges and none of them require detailed materials lists, budget or schedules. And none of them are pre=requisites for an Eagle project anyway.

Actually I don't have so much of a problem with the results-oriented details you list. At some point the Scout is going to have to think through this stuff. The thing I tell my Scouts to do is to close their eyes and envision building their project step-by-step, and write out a set of "Tab A into Slot 1" instructions. I have more of a problem with a lot of the "gotcha" stuff our council wants, like how you will get help in case of emergency (duh!), where the bathrooms are located, descriptions of goals and objectives -- we're building picnic tables, what do you thing the goal is? -- and statment of leadership (I tell the boys just to spit back some EDGE boilerplate), etc.

It is not uncommon for project proposals here to exceed 30 pages and require 20 or 30 hours of work to complete. One of our ASMs is a Six-Sigma blackbelt instructor. He thinks this is rediculous.

I see three issues:

1. Classic bureaucracy. "Good ideas" are constantly added to the requirements but are never allowed to expire. Our council publishes a 40+ item list of "required" details.

And we get about the same level of service I've come to expect from the county Building Inspections department. One of the last project proposals we submitted was rejected because the Scout failed to get the beneficiary's signature on the project workbook, despite the fact he had a signed letter from the beneficiary approving the project in the proposal, just not the same signature on the workbook. Turned down, come back next month. Oh, please.

2. A huge bias toward construction-oriented projects. The joke in these parts is that someone on the review committee is in the pressure-treated lumber business. When do boys learn to build picnic tables, gazebos and foot bridges anymore? Shop was eliminated from schools a generation ago. Kids don't know how to build stuff anymore. If you've never build a picnic table, why are you proposing to build five? Our council makes it very difficult to get a pure-service project approved without a tangible end product.

3. Because of #1 and #2, Eagle projects have become incredibly adult-driven. The whole planning process forces Scouts into projects the adults on the committee think are "Eagle Caliber." We never see projects where the boys just go off and do the project, outside of Scouting, as described in the guidelines. Everything is done through the troop with two-deep leadership every step of the way.

Our Eagle project committee requires all proposals to include a statement that only adults will use power tools, despite the fact that Scouts are permitted to use power tools generally. So an adult is now in a position where all the final decisions on construction details and process go through him.

Much of this is outside what the guideline call for. If councils would simply follow the rules much of this would be eliminated.

>>>>> Much of this is outside what the guideline call for. If councils would simply follow the rules much of this would be eliminated.

>>Or, do we kneed to know every detail about the project, including the who, what, when, where, and how of the picnic tables with full design and materials specs, labor forecasting, punch lists, and OSHA heatlth and safety requirements. Is this documentation really necessary for a life scout to "plan, develop, and give leadership"?

Blancmange -- Unfortunately, most kids don't want to do that. They're afraid they're going to "risk" getting their Eagle of they rock the boat. My own son was absolutely screw on his Eagle project. I strongly encouraged him to appeal but he would not. Easier to comply and develop a second project.

(For those of you who may be thinking my problem with the ESLP review process may be a personal thing because of my son's problem, that's a good questions. In fact, our Scout Exec asked me that very question when I went to talk to him about the problem. And as I told him, "You're D**N RIGHT it's personal. I take it personally when anyone does any of the boys in my troop wrong." But thanks for asking.)

Even worse, appeals don't really have any long-term good. There have been appeals that this boilerplate is added requirements and National found for the Scouts. But the bull simply become "optional" and we get the speech that they "ought to" do include the junk because it's only there to make the review process easier. They fly under the radar for awhile and eventually the "optional" part fades away again.

Problem is the fox is minding the henhouse. National doesn't follow through on the appeals. And no one, other than the advancement committee folks (which is generally the same guys as the project review committee), know anything about them. Everything I know is second hand. I'm not privvy to other folks appeals.

I don't think these guys are as machiavellian as this makes them sound. They're mostly good guys and trying to do a job. But they've defined that job as making sure all ESLP's are equal and no one "gets away" with anything. Consequently all project in the council are reviewed by the same committee, 20 a month on average, sometimes 40 or 50. That's a huge job. So they're creating a lot of red tape trying to deal with a monster they've created. They're doing what bureaucracies do -- create more bureauracy to deal with the bureauracy.

TC Does anyone write proposals this way professionally? I'm sure some professions do, but more likely proposals give general proposals and count on the competence of the folks implementing to proposal to figure out the details.

Yes, we do. From architects, to gardeners, to doctors, to football teams. Ever since the first recessions that shut down our mills, folks with deep pockets want to know technical details before committing to anything. We haven't been able to create booms (like the costal housing markets) where people seem to have been willing to float twice the real value of a commody just to have it.

I'm sure part of that rubs off on what we expect from the boys, especially if they are just a couple of years away from having to compete in our job market.

Hmmm.. Hearing some of your tales, I know our board (although as stated earlier follows the outline, as it is pretty much the outline you would get if the boy filled out his workbook).. Is far gentler on our boys then some of you..

When my husband goes off to a board night, or maybe when he returns, I joke with him about making those canadates sweat.. But truely they are not like that, they like the boys to be relaxed and try to do thing to make them feel more comfortable.. Joking with them, or the adult who is presenting them, or some warm conversation before getting down to buisness.. Then most projects are approved without any changes.. They may ask more questions, of a boy who does not have the gift of explaining themselves well, or does not seem as organized as they should be.. If some things need to be added (say thoughts about first aid precautions, or tools) they are discussed but do not keep the project from being approved.

A few times a project may not be enough to show leadership ability, or too much.. But the too little is usually verbally discussed and agreed on the "additional" verbally and the workbook is signed, or the too much is questioned, but the boy usually does not want to go back and request that they take on 1/2 the project so the boys tell them they want the project as is even if it is alot more work then needed..

I think once or twice their may have been need signatures missing, or something needed to be changed, but it was approved on condition of. Then the boy went off got the signatures or fixed the issue and the either met or called the head of the Eagle board, and his project was a go without waiting a month comeing back to the board and doing everything over again..

The only thing I think our board does that is not in the guidelines is they do like to see that 100 hour minimum in the boys projected hours for the project, get nervous if it looks like over 300.. It is just one of the measuring tools they use to make sure the boy has enough of a project to be able to show his leadership abilities (the other is making sure the project is asking for more volunteers then just the boy and a contractor, or his family) The boys normally don't do the hour projection correct, so sometimes they say 50 hours and the board will look over the project and say "No, you have at least 120 hours, your good.." or someone will say "100 hours" and they will say "No, you have a good 400 hours, because of A, B, C.. It is really way more then you need, these are your options, what would you like to do." or the boy will say "80 hours", and the board will say "That's about right, but you should have at least 100 hours.. What if you do 1 more park bench, or add a fundraiser to maintain the benches" or whatever.. they work on what the boy is willing to add in.

And our board does not require construction project.. Lots of Trail cleaning, we have one scout doing a large plot of veggies to provide to the Food pantry all summer long, organizing drives to send something to military, or people hit by floods or other disastors.. An Autisic scout did some community event to raise awareness of autisim, a great program (shortly after 9/11) that was open to the community about Flag awareness, and proper way to display the flag and retire the flag.. There are many good projects out there that do not need something in concrete that you can come back to and say "See what I did"..(This message has been edited by moosetracker)