training percents

[Lisabob 13]

What do you think is "typical" in terms of the % of adult leaders considered "trained," among units with which you are familiar? Would you expect it to be about 25? Above 50%?

 

I've done a little digging around in my district's records in order to get a better handle on what the local trends are. I'd appreciate a broader comparison though. Somewhere I know I've heard that nationally, about 30% of adult leaders have completed basic training for their positions, but I don't have any idea where that number comes from.

 

 

 

 

[scoutldr 726]

When I was District training chair, my averages ran about 28-30%. NOthing I did seemed to affect that number because I trained a lot of people from other districts and we are in a highly transient military area. Most leaders weren't in their jobs long enough to get trained, especially the Cub Scouters who needed new training every time they changed positions. Most didn't bother.

[John-in-KC 311]

L,

 

Our District has "lost the paperwork" so bloody many times it's not funny.

 

I'd like to think it's as high as 35%, I wouldn't bet against you if you said it was 10%.(This message has been edited by John-in-KC)

[GMitch 10]

Our DE recently told us that our District is at 14% Basic Trained. She added that she believes it is much higher, but that a large number of Scouters have not helped the District stay current on the paperwork. In our Troop we have 54% Basic Trained. In our Pack, we have 40% Basic Trained.

[Bob White 20]

The national office of the BSA recently released the numbers and they calculate that only 29% of direct contact adult leaders have completed basic training in their job in scouting.

 

Kinda scary huh?

 

 

[Gold Winger 9]

In my son's troop it was 100%. To be an ASM you had to complete training. All committee members with named positions (Treasurer, Chair, Advancement, etc) had to be trained as well. Others, like the third mom who brought refreshements did not need to be trained.

 

Yes, we were unusual.

 

 

[Pack212Scouter 10]

Not sure what our district average is. Our pack is 45 out of 46 leaders, or nearly 98%. Our goal is always 100%.

[Lisabob 13]

"but that a large number of Scouters have not helped the District stay current on the paperwork."

 

That one made me laugh. Why should it be on the shoulders of the scouters, who took time to GO to training, to maintain district records? I know everyone is supposed to keep every "trained" card they ever got, but there is a point at which the above is a bit silly. We have a problem with this in our district as well, but the problem lies with poor record keeping on the district end, not on the scouters' end. Sorry, that's a personal pet peeve of mine and it has been touched upon a lot as I was digging through district records. People who I trained personally, within the last year, (so I know they're trained!) sometimes are listed as not trained.

 

Bob- do you have any idea where I can cite that %? I've heard "National recently said" several times recently but no one can tell me where they said/wrote it. I figure if anyone knows that, it might be you. Thank you.

 

 

[FScouter 24]

The old version of the Leadership Training Committee Guide says "In 1996, 59.7 percent of top unit leaders in the Boy Scouts of America were reported to be trainined".

[Bob White 20]

I heard it from the BSA Director of the Relationships division back in February of this year during a presentation he made at an Area Cluster Meeting.

 

OGE also quoted the number from his councils news letter from March of 07. http://www.minsitrails.com/Documents/Newsletter/Mar2007/final.pdf

[scoutldr 726]

Bob said, "The national office of the BSA recently released the numbers and they calculate that only 29% of direct contact adult leaders have completed basic training in their job in scouting. Kinda scary huh? "

 

Not scary at all, because I don't believe it. If they got their numbers from Council and District statistics, they are just propagating the errors. I have been involved in the same Council since 1989 as an adult and since 1963 as a scout. When I got the printout from my DE, it still had me listed as "not trained". Correcting the printouts at recharter time didn't seem to work, either. The frustrating thing was when the SE would pop in to our Council Training Committee meetings and berate us for having low percentages. Sorry to say, I gave up. For those with a TQM/Deming background, it was the classic "Red Bead experiment"....

 

[FScouter 24]

I suspect that most of the training status discrepancies in ScoutNet records is a direct result of the course director and district training chair failing to submit a training attendance report. I don't mean a lined sheet of paper ripped out of a notebook and passed around the room. I mean the BSA form #34413, completed and signed by the course director.

 

BSA provides a number of forms and tools to help the district training committee keep track of training:

Unit Inventory of Training

District Summary of Training Leaders

Traing Status of Top Leaders

Training Status Change

Fast Start Completion Report

 

If the records are wrong, I'd go first to the district training chair and ask if they're using the tools provided.

[Bob White 20]

This is what the BSA said the training figures were. If they are wrong or why they are wrong is pure conjecture.

 

I am sure that some units were probably not accurate and showed fewer trained leaders, just as some were probably not accurate showing more trained leaders. On a national scale they probably took that into consideration.

 

Most scouters would agree that the number of untrained leaders are too high unless everyone is trained. In the presentation I heard the point was not "bad volunteers" it was:

the need for councils to initiate more training opportunities,

 

for Charter organizations to select and retain leaders willing to attend and follow the BSA training,

 

and for professionals to do a better job of starting new units by properly training and develping new leaders.

 

None of those points are bad points regardless of how many leaders are trained.

 

(This message has been edited by BoB White)

[Oak Tree 15]

Like so many other districts, ours seems to have no idea which of its leaders are trained.

 

There's certainly a difference between "top unit leaders" and "direct contact leaders". I don't think we'll ever have all of our assistant den leaders get trained.

 

Around here it seems like most CMs and SMs are trained...but I don't have a good feel for those smaller, more invisible units. The people I never see may very well not be trained.

 

Thirty percent doesn't sound unrealistic to me, especially if we're counting assistant den leaders. But I would think the records show an overly low percentage, because they are frequently not up-to-date. Becoming a trained den leader is fairly straightforward - I'd guess the percentage is higher. Becoming a trained ASM takes quite a bit more time - hence I wouldn't be surprised by a lower percentage there.

 

Our pack tends to run over 80% trained for DLs and CMs. Our troop is probably closer to 30%. Our committees are far lower.

[John-in-KC 311]

????

 

I've not had a chance to go there, sooooo...

 

Does ScoutNet Internet Advancement only account for youth-related program advancement, or does it support training input?

 

Inquiring minds...