joelcochran

Let's take a simple logical breakdown of the statement:

"At least 70 percent of our youth members had an outdoor experience or one activity per month, or improve percentage over last year"

Means:

1: At least 70 percent of our youth members had an outdoor experience (per month)

OR

2: At least 70 percent of our youth members had one activity per month

OR

3: (the unit had an) improve(d) percentage over last year (of % of members attending a monthly activity)

(parentheses indicate my added clarifications)

Therefore any of the three will allow the unit to qualify.

What is NOT clear, and what remains open to interpretation, is the definition of an activity. Involved in that definition must be an explanation of the scope of that activity (in other words, would a den level activity count, or should it be a Pack/Unit level?) Given that this is the Quality UNIT Award, I will assume for purposes of this discussion that the requirement refers to Unit level activities only.

As I see it, there are two viable interpretations:

1: ANY activity, including pack or troop meetings.

2: Any activities beyond the cursory monthly meetings.

I do not have an answer: I think that National needs to clarify the intent of this requirement.

#1 above seems too easy, but in all honesty #2 above seems too difficult. Many good units take a couple of months off during the summer: are they not quality? What if you have to cancel an activity planned for the last weekend of January because of weather? Even a make-up event would not be in January, so now you do not qualify. Many other units simply can't get 12 additional activities on the calendar. And do District/Council level events count?

To get around most of these questions, I think most people will fall into option #3, the "we did better than last year" clause. Until we have firm metrics (which will not happen under this system) this is impossible to quantify, so it will be up to Unit leaders to determine for themselves how they did.

All in all, I think that National could do a much better job. It seems that they want every unit to determine for themselves what Quality is, which ultimately makes quality meaningless.

Right, I think that's what I was trying to say...

There is some guidance on the national website:

http://www.scouting.org/awards/centennial/14-175-2.pdf

And the official form has some clarification points on the back of the sheet.

I certainly agree that this format is open for abuse, but the abuse must be sanctioned on three levels. The Pack level, the Unit Commissioner, and the District Executive must all sign on the dotted line. If you lowball the numbers to something ridiculous, like 25% retention, hopefully someone at one of those levels will call you on it. I seem to remember hearing something about "A Scout is Trustworthy". Let's also not forget that this is a new program, and invariably new programs will have some growing pains. Eventually, the new system will be accepted and the argument will die down, or it will be rejected and another new system will be put into place.

I do question the wisdom of the new format, but if approached in the proper spirit it should be effective. The goal, of course, is to get units to establish goals and strive for something. The old QU approach had its problems as well. For one thing, it was entirely arbitrary, a set group of numbers that never took into account specific circumstances at each unit. For units who couldn't meet the goals, it was not always fair, and for units who could easily meet the goals it promotes laziness (some units would JUST meet those numbers and not strive for anything else).

Quality is an esoteric goal. We should all do our best to provide a good program to the boys: if the program is provided and is in keeping with the BSA guidelines, then that should be a quality unit. I can't help it that half my parents think soccer is more important than scouts 4 months out of the year. I still bust my butt to make sure the program is available, and I do what I can to accomodate them. In my book, that's quality.

So, who's to decide? If arbitrary numbers don't seem fair to you (as they don't to me), then maybe someone else should just make the call? Not a chance: can you imagine the problems if UCs or DEs were doing a thumbs up/down sort of a thing? Talk about infighting! So that won't work either: so what you have is a system like the new one.

Scouter, evaluate thyself!

--

Joel Cochran

http://www.justonehouraweek.com

I'm new to the forum so I'm just saying Howdy! I'm from the beautiful Shenandoah Valley of Virginia, I;m a Unit Commissioner in Valley District of Stonewall Jackson Area Council, as well as Cubmaster (and other things) to Pack 121 of Verona, VA.

I have been in scouting for a grand total of 13 years, the last 5 of which as a leader. I have been to Philmont and am a proud Beaver of Woodbadge Course SR-724.