​Eagle scout project Proposals need metrics

[fred johnson]

The proposal only requests numbers really in preliminary costing. The trouble I see is that the key section does not request numbers. It only says "Briefly describe your project."

 

Construction - How many are you going to build?

Landscaping - What is the dimensions of the area you are working on?

Collection - Or, how many days are you going to run your collection on? how many sites? How much do you hope to collect?

 

It's not about demanding a minimum. It's about the scout setting a goal and achieving it. It's also about honoring an agreement. I've seen a few projects recently where the numbers are reduced to the point I'd say it's a significantly and materially different project than was originally signed off. But since the beneficiary signed off on it (and many will sign off on anything), there is not much that can be done.

 

And this is somewhat about people gaming the system where they say they will do X when reviewing the proposal but they actually do something significantly different ... and the beneficiary is grateful for anything and doesn't want to hurt the scout by not signing. I've seen one recently do this and I am rather upset about it. And there is nothing I can do about it EXCEPT make sure that eagle project proposals I sign in the future have explicit numbers and measurements in them.

[pchadbo]

Fred,

 

I apperciate your concern, however there are reasons for NOT including hard numbers. Lets say Larry Life Scout puts in a proposal for an Eagle project to collect food for the local food pantry, will build collection boxes, have them manned 4 weekends and will collect 1500 pieces of food. An admirable goal to be sure, with the organization and leadership skills displayed. Now Larry does exactly what he says he is going to do in fact even gets to add a weekend for collection and collects 1400 pieces of food. Did he complete his Eagle project, by your request to include hard numbers and hold them to them, no he did not complete his Eagle project.

Had Larry worded his proposal as collecting a significant amount of food for the pantry, he would have made Eagle.

I understand the sentiment as someties the Larry Life Scouts do thi project, collect 100 pieces and call it "Significant" this is where the oversight of the benfactor as well as the SM and others involved in the process comes in. Not to mention, a Scout is Honest.

[fred johnson]

pchadbo ... Agreed numbers are difficult to setup, manage and evaluate. But as with standardized testing, I'd rather have that trouble than not have any numbers at all.

 

------------------------------------------------------------

 

For your example, the number collected is really beyond the scout's control. So it's a poor control. But, I might ask the scout to write down what they hope to collect because it's interesting and helps the scout better understand his project and it gives discussion ideas. Will the boxes fit that collection amount. How often would you have to empty them. etc. etc.

 

On the other side, the number of locations, weekends and staff is within his control. Now if he said he was going to build five collection boxes and only built four, then fine. If he was going to have four collection weekends and he only did three, fine. My issue is we have one where the scout said he'd effectively have six collection weekends, and he's only having 1.5 collection weekends.

 

Even then, I'd be temped to say fine if the scout just called and explained why the 6 to 1 deviance. "I didn't know how many people I'd need." "The beneficiary was happy with how much we collected the first weekend." "The facility is only offering four days, three on one weekend and one day on another weekend." That happens.

 

But at some point, a proposal needs to get re-approved or re-cleared if the deviation is that big.

 

I'm just thinking there does need to be more numbers in the proposal. At least the proposal does say "Approximately how many people will be needed to help on your project?"

 

 

-----------------------------------------------------------

 

Perhaps it's as easy as adding a few words....

 

From --> Briefly describe your project:

To --> Briefly describe your project (include estimated quantities or measurements to help communicate scope)

 

 

 

[Twocubdad]

The pendulum bangs from one extreme to the other. Before the 2011 changes, it wasn't uncommon for out council to TURN DOWN 30-page proposals because the Scout didn't jump through some ridiculous hoop or the other. We've now abandoned any sort of reasonable, rational planning. "I might want to build a few picnic tables somewhere. Maybe someone will wander along and use them. I'll probably need some boards." is an acceptable EP proposal according to the Guide to High-Speed/Low-Drag Advancement. It already includes a Scout's Bill of Rights and I'm sure a toll-free number is in the works. 1-800-RAT-URSM, no doubt.

 

My advice, ignore it. Ask for details. Use your brain. "Picnic tables are nice. What do you really think you'll need do build them?" For the usual construction-oriented project I ask for four things -- plans and drawings, a materials list, a budget and a schedule. With those four items, completing the proposal and the final plan is a easy as falling off a log. And I have a long line of Eagles will -- and do -- tell the younger Scouts in no uncertain terms how stupid it would be not to follow that advice.

 

My purpose is to give the Scouts AN OPPORTUNITY for success. This doesn't guarantee success, and we don't do the work for them. If they follow through with the planning as I suggest, they will have a high likelihood of success. Fortunately, our council Eagle project committee seems to agree. Once or twice the district advancement chairman has mentioned that we can't require the details, but in the three-plus years under the new rules they have yet to turn down a project.

 

As spelled out in policy and workbook instructions, not only is the "somewhere, somehow" proposal acceptable, the final plan is optional and the Scout should report anyone who asks for it.. So a Scout decides to follow the policy to the letter and builds his project with minimal planning and no supervision. Eight-penny nails sounds expensive enough, and because he wants his picnic tables to look nice, he goes with the shiney finish nails. When the tables collapse under their own weight, we read further in the policy that a SUCCESSFUL project isn't required nor ultimately is the approval of the beneficiary. VIOLA! A new Eagle Scout who has provided no service to the community and likely demonstrated little leadership in conducting his project.

 

I have higher expectations of both our program and the Scouts in it.

[qwazse]

I think we're actually better for keeping it simple. It returns us to the original notions of projects, which weren't intended to teach boys general contracting. However, I do agree:

 

"Briefly" should include a metric (one, not a half-dozen) that quantifies what you expect to do. Fred's examples are fine ... except for the "how much you hope to collect"? That's a little out of the scout's control.

 

And we should be satisfied with "... the beneficiary is grateful ...", at the same time, we should coach beneficiaries in expecting an appropriate level of action.

 

Then the scouts after action review should be able to critically evaluate: Did he implement his plan? Did it have the intended result?

[SR540Beaver]

I must admit that I never sat on an Eagle board under the old project workbook. I was too busy doing unit scouting, OA, district and council staffing and such to add that to my list. After my son aged out and I slowed down a little, I took up EBOR's. That being said, my son and other boy's in our unit used the old workbook, so I'm very familiar with the format. As a board member, I'd much prefer the old format. We get far too many kids whose unit leadership signs off on an idea. Literally, an idea and little else. Under the new format, they don't have to put much more effort into it than that. I know I exaggerate, but it's close to being true. My son rebuilt a pavilion at a Campfire USA campground that had been destroyed by a flood. His workbook had all the materials, measurements, plans, drawings, etc you could imagine in support of the project. An owner/engineer of a major commercial construction company (builds skyscrapers) sat on his board. He told my son after the board that when he looked at it before my son even sat with them, it was so well done that he could picture the whole project in his mind and understand exactly what he was doing. now all we get is, "I'm going to rebuild a destroyed pavilion". What materials are you going to use? Plywood and shingles maybe. Maybe metal. How much do you need? I don't know, I was going to talk to the ranger and see what he thought. I'm running more and more into these type of initial EBOR's and they fall within the spirit and letter of the new rules. We spend most of our time making suggestions to help him succeed than we do hearing him explain a real plan. It's just an idea. We approve them, but we feel like we are approving vapor in many instances. I think the old workbook needed some adjustments, but I think they went too far in the other direction with the new workbook.

[NJCubScouter]

I agree with fred, and also with the comments that the recent changes have gone a little too far.

 

I have not seen candidates trying to "game" the system through vague descriptions, but I have seen some "brief descriptions" that are inadequate, mainly in the ways fred mentions: No indication of how many benches (or whatevers), how big the area to be improved, etc. The Scout usually KNOWS these things by the time the proposal gets to the troop committee for approval, but it doesn't say to put them in, so some Scouts don't. I think the word "briefly" is so vague that it confuses people. In our troop, when we find that the description is too ambiguous, we strongly suggest that some details (the "metrics" as you call them) be added. (Whether this is permissible or not, I'm not sure, but that's what we do.)

 

I think the question should be changed to take out the word "briefly" and request the "metrics" though I am not sure how that should be worded. I think it needs to be made clear that what is being requested in that section does NOT include details of the PLAN for the project, but rather a description of the "project" itself. In other words, WHAT is going to be done, not HOW it is going to be done - which is asked for to some degree in later questions in the Proposal section, and is of course the focus of the Plan section, to be completed after the Proposal is approved.

[Stosh]

I can think of two EP's that did not require any measurable metrics to complete. I think that requiring that detailed of an explanation is going beyond the expectation of the requirement. "Briefly describe your project." That to me doesn't leave much room for a lot of metrics and other hoops that the boys are expected to jump through. I have seen boys briefly describe their project in 2 or 3 well thought out sentences. And they can do so without mentioning one metric.

 

I will be doing the cleanup and landscaping around the new addition our church just completed. Everything will be provided for the landscaping by the congregation and I will be directing the work crews of church members, scouts and friends to complete the project.

 

I will be organizing groups to go around to cemeteries and evaluating military grave sites to make sure all veterans have a marker, the marker is readable and if not make an application request to the Veterans' Administration to have a new marker placed.

 

These are the last two EP's I was involved with in my troop. Both did a great job and had no problem with their projects or EBOR's.

 

Stosh

[Twocubdad]

SR540B -- the Scouts you are seeing are doing exactly what is asked of them by the EP documents. "Plywood and shingles, maybe" is the standard national has set for effort and planning. Pitiful.

[fred johnson]

Thanks for the responses.

 

I love the new workbook in that it is helpful to the scouts and reigns in the exaggerated processes our district had put in that I think were abusive to the scouts.

 

 

 

BUT ... The eagle proposals I'm seeing lack scoping boundaries. Maybe it's just the word "briefly". Maybe we need a second box that can be used to better communicate scope or boundaries.

 

I'm just frustrated with two projects I've seen lately where after it is approved and moving forward, I see significant scope changes that made a project that was challenging to be a cake walk. Essentially, it was described differently to me than it was actually done. But the proposal had few numbers to hold it accountable too. And the parents were involved significantly and knowing them I could see them descoping what the scout said so the scout would have an easy success. It's frustrating.

[scoutldr]

Rule #1 of goal setting: don't set goals for something that you can't control. Seems to me the "control points" for QA of the project are the SM conference for Eagle and the EBOR where there should be a discussion as to why the final result did not adhere to the plan. My wife, the school nurse, was once the recipient of an Eagle project where the scout proposed to build shelves in her clinic. She agreed. She never saw the scout (or any scouts) again...the kid's Mom came in during the week while he was in school and completed the project. I had to listen to that rant for weeks about how the BSA and the Eagle Scout project was such a joke. (She is a former First Class GS). This was in a different district, so I never saw the scout at his EBOR, but I urged my wife to refuse to allow the mom into her clinic, and call the Council to voice her concerns.

[Twocubdad]

I'd say about 10% of the projects I've seen have been blatantly completed by parents, or at least significant portions. Most parents do a better job of covering it up. Besides, I bet if you wife wrote a letter to that kid's BOR they would have passed it anyway. The kid would have only to come up with some cock-and-bull story about delegating "delivery" of the shelves to his mother.

 

BSA policies try to chase the last fractional percent of everything. They want air-tight policies which require no discretion to administer. Nothing works that way. Consequently we get advancement policies mandating that a Scout can use anyone to help on their EP including their parents and that leadership can be demonstrated adequately with only one other person. I'm sure somewhere in Alaska there is a Scout who lives alone with a single parent and is an hour by bush plane from the nearest neighbor. Okay, I'm cool with him parent doing the project together. (Heck, he's probably working with the Discovery Channel on his own reality show.)

 

But in the real world I end up with a dad screaming at me that "he and his" son decided "they" wanted to do his EP as their last father-son project before he went to college. Their final plans were between and them and the beneficiary and they wanted no involvement from the troop. I wished them luck in finding a Scoutmaster who would sign off on that. I wouldn't. Fortunately, and at least for now, the block above the Unit Leader's signature on the EP proposal states, "I will see that the project is monitored, and that adults or others present will not overshadow him."

 

Of course we know that in the BSA world, signatures are just fluff and carry no real weight. No doubt the national advancement team will figure this out and change this to "I am aware the Scout is submitting a Eagle Project proposal. We chatted about the weather and his favorite sports teams." You know, like they did on the blue cards.

[MattR]

We mostly ignore what's in the workbook except that there be a plan. If what they're doing is a collection then I also ask for a goal. The plan is to force the scout to think things through enough such that when things go wrong he can figure out how to adapt. It also sets expectations as to the scope of the project. If the plan is "I will plant some trees" then I'll ask for more detail. How many trees and what size. What I don't want is a scout planting two trees that each came in a 2 gallon pot (i.e., a half hour of work for one person). I've had scouts redo their project. It's not like they came in 2% shy of their goal. It was more like 95% shy. If they're half of what they said they'd get then it's more a question of was the short fall from lack of leadership or just bad luck. Bad luck I understand. Not calling anyone to show up and help is bad leadership. Other times they've just dropped what was the biggest component. It's not just the parents but also the recipient that doesn't understand that this is more than a service project.

 

My main job at an eagle project is to ask adults to back off and let the scout lead. They are usually very receptive to this.

[Stosh]

Evaluation AFTER the fact is not the same thing as briefly describing before the fact. If the boy proposes one thing and then does another there are no amount of metrics that are going to change a thing. Now it's up to the EBOR to determine if the requirement for the EP has been successfully completed. The scope of a project has nothing to do with the ability of the scout to show leadership and organizational skills. The boy doing the veterans' headstone project. Did it make one iota of difference if the boy did 100 grave sites or 1,000 grave sites to qualify for an EP? One cemetery or 25? What kind of metrics here make any difference? I'm going to build 100 picnic tables or just 10? I proposed 100, but fundraising efforts only secured materials for 10 tables. So now the boy doesn't get Eagle?

 

Again I see too many opportunities for abuse by adults interfering with the EP process.

 

Stosh

[fred johnson]

Again I see too many opportunities for abuse by adults interfering with the EP process.

 

I agree and that is a real concern. But I would really like to know if it is a 1000 or a 100 or 10. Plans change. Things happen. But at some point, the project is not what was approved and right now there is little to hold them accountable.