A Place to Beat a Dead Horse (or a favorite drum)

[Beavah 205]

Yah, sometimes I don't get some folks. As I've mentioned, I appreciate some of Kudu's thoughts and his collection of materials on his site, eh? I do believe it's very hard for most folks to get anything out of 'em, though, just because it always tends to come off as a bit too strident or critical. But the issues are worth discussin' rationally.

 

So here's a thread on the topic, for those who are interested. But with a caveat/request: Kudu, as a favor, you are asked not to say one negative or critical thing about the BSA or BSA's current program materials. You may only explain in ways everyone can understand what you think is the best way for a troop or district to put together a program or training, and your reasons. No slams about management theory or any of that! Tell us what to do, not what not to do. Everyone else, we must refrain from any comments to the effect of "that is old, we've moved on, etc." or "but the BSA materials say..." Same deal for us. If we want to advocate somethin' different, we must do it positively, not by shouting about what's written, but by explainin' how we think our way better serves boys or units.

 

As close as I can figure, Kudu advocates a very limited set of things.

 

1) Scouting as conceived in America by Hillcourt circa 1950-70. That's not the same thing as either B-P scouting or traditional" scouting as practiced here or elsewhere in the 1910-30 timeframe.

2) Much tighter focus on Patrol Method (which might pose interestin' challenges when most troops are fairly small, on the order of 15 lads or so).

3) Youth leadership (by patrol), includin' independent camping and travel.

 

I reckon a lot of us would agree at least in part with two out of three.

 

Beavah

[Boris Badenov 10]

Beavah....sinch you started this thread...I would like to add...

 

1. Not all members here have yet to attain the 1000+ plus posting status or read all of the posts on the board. How about not slamming folks for posting something that may have been discussed a year or two ago?

 

2. Keep in mind that not everyone is as perfect at scout as the senior group of posters out there. I could name name, but you can think back and see if you have ever "corrected" someone...especially newbies to the forums.

 

3. What is the point in arguing about stuff on here on a personal basis? Take it offline for crying out loud!

 

4. Is there any chance that we can have postings without trying to insult other folks here? I mean what is scouting supposed to be about...? Can you personally remember the points of the scout law's (International included on that)?

 

5. If you have honest quibling to do, take it to the issues and politics forum....PLEASE!!!

 

6. Is there any chance that we can get a few more of you experienced posters to shares some posive light on things instead of slamming things so much??? We are not all quite as perfect as you all are. A piece of humble pie anyone?

 

7. Have you ever wondered why folks post on here for a peried of time and then you NEVER see them post again? It's not always because they are no longer involved in scouting, but just tired of the tone of the nonsense that goes on here. Now there are some good threads, agreed, but for gosh sake for every good one, I can find a half dozen or more that are riddled with slams, insults, put downs, or just down right plain old not nice dialogue.

 

Get the picture. Scouting is not about all of that. If Baden Powell or Bill Hillcourt were to read some of the crap that is played out here or tossed at some of the other members, I am sure they would say that is not scouting in any sense of the word.

 

Ok...I have had my say. Why so much? Because as I read the posts it really frustrates me to see new posters put down, insulted, or belittled by you so called senioor group of posters. This has been building for a while and now have have said what I wanted to say. Nuff' said.

 

p,s. My last post was a parady on the uniform police along some of the above and never really happened.

[Stosh 3452]

Ok, I'll start because I have been deemed by some on the forum as somewhat of a Kudu disciple. Maybe I am, I don't know... but my boys are. So now what do I do? Insist on NYLT or teach Kudu's materials?

 

I have boys that attended NYLT and came back really disappointed. So disappointed they are encouraging others not to fork over the $200 to attend this coming summer. Instead, they asked me to teach what I know about leadership and the Hillcort material off of Kudu's sight instead. They also avidly read old scout handbooks they get off of Ebay. My SPL wears the new uniform and my ASPL wears a green one from the 1950's - 60's. They use the bullet shaped patrol flags from the earlier years, most of which are made, one was purchased off of Ebay. All PL's carry a 6' staff for their flags and all the troop officers carry one as well. All but a few of the newer boys carry and learn how to use them. One of my boys even wears the "scoutmaster" hat as part of his full uniform.

 

I see scouting as a tool to reach boys. Sports does a pretty good job, but the dynamics of what is taught is rather limited. Schools teach a lot, but not much for critical thinking and/or leadership. I like the broader base of scouting dynamics in that it offers more opportunity than any other program I have worked with. Other than scouting, church groups and at-risk youth have been the majority of my work. I have been involved with sporting teams and a wide variety of "educational" venues as well.

 

Now, scouting offers both contemporary as well as historical tools. I have encouraged the use of the more contemporary tools, but for some reason the boys seem to move more towards, and get more bang for their buck with the older methods. They seem to take a sense of pride in not doing it the same as everyone else. They evaluate and make decisions based on the more Hillcourt dynamics.

 

For example, they attended summer camp in a troop-method camp. They were one of two units that did patrol cooking. The other patrol stayed in their campsite except for doing merit badges and making use of camp facilities. My boys did the same thing but attended every flag ceremony (in full uniform, even on the "no uniform" evening) and program the camp had to offer. They struggled with the cooking, cleaning, and camp inspections all the way through the week. We had a handful of older scouts and the majority were webelos crossovers.

 

This year they elected to find a camp that will fit their needs better and will attend a patrol-method camp, but they will insist on their own menus instead of cooking camp food. It would seem that either I have created a monster, or these older dynamics have turned my boys on.

 

Now it can be said that the modern program does in fact teach the boy-led, patrol-method. It most certainly does, but the Summer camps, the camporees, and the traditions of the majority of troops I have witnessed in my council do not practice what is being taught by BSA. The historic and contemporary material may in fact be the same, but the boys are understanding and/or are being taught differently, at least differently enough that they gravitate to the older materials for understanding.

 

I do suppliment my style of scoutmastership with other dynamics that I have learned along the way from other programs. US Army (Lead by Example, where do you think Scouts got it from?) and Servant Leadership resources (Christian program). I use only a few teaching mantras. One being the 3 rules everyone must follow 1) "Safety First", 2) "Look and act like a Scout", and 3) "Have fun". If one is aspiring for leadership they must also take the 2-second lesson for leaders... "Take care of your People".

 

Now, I know for the most part in one way or another both the historic and contemporary programs teach basically the same thing, but they do so in different styles/approaches in attempting to inspire the boys. In spite of the contemporary world, it would seem that my boys prefer the historic approach better and at least understand it better. Their biggest complaint, however, is not the program, but the traditions of scouting demonstrated in the practice of scouting that do not adhere to the program.

 

Stosh

[2eagles 10]

Stosh,

I don't know if you realize the clear message that comes through your post -- It is about the boys -- Thank you. No matter how frustrated we may get with councils, districts etc.. those of us in Scouting need to remember it is about the boys. You have let your boys lead, decide and thrive they are lucky to have you. I believe when all the baloney out there gets boiled down, the main issue is when the general program interfers with what is best for the boys and each boy is unique.

2eagles

[Kudu 186]

Beavah writes:

 

"Kudu...you may only explain in ways everyone can understand what you think is the best way for a troop or district to put together a program or training, and your reasons."

 

One way to use the old materials to "re-invent Boy Scouts" is to rescue a "Troop in Trouble," maybe as a Wood Badge Ticket item.

 

Ask your District Commissioner for a list of Troops of around four (4) Scouts with NO Cub Scout "feeder Pack."

 

This is the ideal Troop for re-invention because changing a working Troop culture is always dangerous, but with four Scouts what do you have to loose?

 

You WILL need to get access to a local school during school hours unless you know a better way to recruit 15 new Scouts a year. Often the common wisdom is that such a thing "is against school policy." You need to find someone inside who CAN arrange it. This will give you access to all of the boys who dropped out of Cub Scouts. See:

 

http://inquiry.net/adult/recruiting.htm

 

The last time I did this, my connection turned out to be two emo Scouts who spent enough time in detention and suspension to know that the vice-principal in charge of discipline was pro-Scouting They arranged the recruiting presentation for me. The younger emo became Patrol Leader, and then SPL.

 

Beavah writes:

 

"As close as I can figure, Kudu advocates a very limited set of things.

 

1) Scouting as conceived in America by Hillcourt circa 1950-70."

 

I would say 1936-1965.

 

1936 was the year of the publication of Hillcourt's 1,166 page Handbook for Scoutmasters. This is the most comprehensive Scouter "how-to" book in the history of Scouting, world-wide.

 

It is THE book to buy if you want to "re-invent" Boy Scouts. Every page has at least one new idea. Paradoxically, 1,166 new ideas gives you freedom from theory: The flexibility to adapt the program to the Scouts' personalities. This is called "Troop culture."

 

You can find used copies for less than $10 per volume at AddAll.

 

See:

 

http://tinyurl.com/5sjvz3

 

IMPORTANT: To find the correct edition, look for "Volume 1" or "Volume 2" in the description, starting on "page 2" of the above URL!

 

Some of the 1940s printings of the 3rd edition include the Patrol Leader Training course, "Intensive Training in the Green Bar Patrol" on pages 208 i - 208 xvi:

 

http://inquiry.net/patrol/green_bar/index.htm

 

The golden era of Scouting ended with the addition of specific Position of Responsibility advancement requirements sometime around 1965, the year of Hillcourt's retirement.

 

Beavah writes:

 

"That's not the same thing as either B-P scouting or "traditional" scouting as practiced here or elsewhere in the 1910-30 timeframe.

 

Yes, that was the first dark period for the Patrol System in America, but it is a GOOD time to look at Baden-Powell's program to see what Scouting is like without schoolwork. Baden-Powell's "final version" of his Game can be found in his 1938 PO&R:

 

A 17MB (72 dpi) scan of the 1938 Canadian version of Baden-Powell's Policy, Organisation, & Rules (PO&R) can be found online at the following URL.

 

http://www.scoutscan.com/history/scoutbook_72dpi.pdf

 

An easier to read 70 MB (150 dpi) version can be found at:

 

http://www.scoutscan.com/history/scoutbook_150dpi.pdf

 

That is the kind of thing that you can just skim through at first (it is very confusing for American readers).

 

Beavah writes:

 

"2) Much tighter focus on Patrol Method"

 

Yes, the Patrol Method is not ONE method in which Scouting can be carried on. It is the ONLY method!

 

Beavah writes:

 

"(which might pose interestin' challenges when most troops are fairly small, on the order of 15 lads or so)"

 

The Patrol Method does NOT depend on dividing a small Troop into two Patrols. The Patrol Method depends on dividing the Scouts from the adults The time for two Patrols is when you have at least 10 REGULAR CAMPERS and two natural leaders.

 

Beavah writes:

 

"3) Youth leadership (by patrol), includin' independent camping and travel."

 

Yeah, except for the independent travel part. I train Scouts HOW to camp without adults someday, but I don't tell them that. The best Patrols will think of it on their own.

 

When I rescue a Troop in Trouble, the first thing I do is identify Top Dog.

 

Basically I look for the smartest, most outspoken kid. Often he appears to be against everything I stand for, but Top Dog usually has the following qualities:

 

1) Above average IQ and verbal skills;

2) A natural sense of fair play, especially when adults are not looking (see Scout Law for specifics);

3) An absolute love of outdoor adventure which once a month places Troop campouts above sports or a weekend job;

4) A bearing that discourages anarchy when the adults aren't looking. A real leader MUST have control.

 

At the first meeting all of us sit around a table and plan a campout. I take the role of Patrol Leader, as in the Green Bar Patrol training course referenced above. I want to make a fresh start, so I might pick a camping location they have never been to, maybe just a remote corner of a local Scout camp.

 

As we talk about camping, Top Dog will begin to suggest things. He might be hostile at first. I write down his ideas and ask him for clarification, rewording his statements out-loud in a positive way as I write.

 

Usually Top Dog is NOT the Patrol Leader or SPL because of the previous adults, as explained in my last 941 "negative" posts

 

One of our methods in the Scout movement for taming a hooligan is to appoint him head of a Patrol. He has all the necessary initiative, the spirit and the magnetism for leadership, and when responsibility is thus put upon him it gives him the outlet he needs for his exuberance of activity, but gives it in a right direction.""--Baden-Powell, from the article "Are Our Boys Degenerating?" circa 1918.

 

I don't appoint anybody or suggest elections. I just ask lots of questions and defer to Top Dog as much as possible. Scouting is based on Baden-Powell's observation that in any natural gang of boys, the natural leader emerges. Naturally.

 

We plan a menu based on what they would like to eat if they did not have to cook it or clean it up. I bring a Dutch Oven cookbook and tell them I will clean their Dutch Ovens if they find something in the book they want to cook. Usually there is a kid who loves to cook. We brainstorm an equipment list, with me steering it in the direction of mostly light-weight stuff except for the Dutch ovens.

 

The second meeting revolves around camping equipment. The entire Troop of four Scouts rummages though the Troop's stuff. I look for the most obsessive-compulsive Scout to be a possible Quartermaster. I ask him questions, usually a Scout who is obsessive about equipment knows where everything is. Finally I hand him a clipboard with the equipment list. Clipboards are important

 

I own enough backpacks, small tents, and backpacking stoves for a small Troop, so we will just take some Troop cooking gear and "backpack" a half-mile. Just far enough to get away from the cars and to get everybody used to the adults being separated from the Scouts. Maybe just 50 feet at first. By then Top Dog is emerging as the uncontested leader, but 50 feet is close enough to make sure he is doing OK. If not, I take him aside and ask questions.

 

Well, that is what I do in the first two weeks.

 

Kudu

 

 

[Beavah 205]

Yah, so that's interestin', eh?

 

One thing yeh seem to be saying is "play to the natural talents and strengths of each boy". Let the Top Dog be PL, encourage the detail-oriented to be QM, etc. That's quite a contrast with some implementations of the NSP where leadership rotates, eh?

 

So now let's continue the thought. What happens beyond those two weeks (and first two years)? A hands-on adult mentor can recognize the talents of individual boys and steer 'em in a small group of a half dozen or so. But as the unit gets bigger, that's harder and harder to do, eh? It might even be hard to do in a large NSP where boys start not knowing each other. That bright alpha male might sit back for the first little bit to get the lay of the land in a bigger group.

 

I've no doubt that a caring, active SM who gets to know his boys' talents well and gives 'em some freedom to shine will do well in a small group. But is it scalable? And how far? In my experience, the writ of that kind of SM seems to break around where BP said it did, at about 35 boys or so, if not before.

 

Beavah

 

[Stosh 3452]

Beavah,

 

One of the problems with the numbers games comes in the fact that at most an adult can kinda control about 30-35 boys on his own. However, if he turns over the control to the boys and they are structured into patrols, then he doesn't have to keep an eye on everyone, only the few that are supporting the patrols. This means the boys lead the boys and the adults support only a handful of the key boys. Then the numbers can expand. If structured with an 8 boy patrol, then no leader of any sort, boy or adult need worry about more than 8 other people. That number is very easy to handle even by the most novice of fledgling boy leaders.

 

If a unit has 8 patrols of 8 boys that means that the SPL watches over his 8 PL's and the PL's their patrols, one has 65 boys and no one watches over more than 7-8 others. One doesn't even have to add an interferring adult to see this happening. Usually what happens is an SPL tries to run the whole troop/show and if an adult can't lead 25-30 boys, what makes one think a less experienced SPL can? The SPL is the PL of the PL's. When he starts interfering in the affairs of the individual patrols, why have PL's???? Once the interferring SPL strips the PL's of their leadership responsiblities, then they have slipped into the Boy-Led, Troop Method. When the SPL get's overwhelmed, the SM steps in and now one has the traditional Adult-Led, Troop-Method program we see so often. If everyone stays with the patrol-method, there can be multiple ASPL's tending to 8 PL's and with two ASPL's one can have 130 boys and not even address the issue of needed Troop Officers (i.e. scribe, TG, etc.)

 

The secret to a boy-led program is to: let the boys lead. :^)

 

Stosh

[Beavah 205]

Yah, jblake, I get the theory, eh? I've just never seen it work in practice.

 

The issue is that Kudu is proposin' that a central piece of the program he envisions is a SM who has the skill, talent, and listening ability to recognize the innate talents in each boy and to steer 'em into positions through direct mentoring. That's not "adult control" or a bad thing necessarily. But it does rely on some really engaged, experienced, and kid-centered mentoring by an adult of the right sort.

 

Youth leaders by and large don't have that skill set, and they don't have the experience to perform da kind of subtle encouragement Kudu's talkin' about. Also, youth followers aren't apt to respond to youth in the same way. So one of da central ingredients in developing patrols as Kudu describes would break down if it were pursued in the way you suggest. Boys tend to retreat to votes in order to be "fair", eh?

 

That's not to say yeh can't get to bigger troops through different means. Just that this one breaks down. Generally speakin', almost all the larger troops I've seen impose a lot of adult management structure/organization, substantially narrowing the scope of youth leadership, but in ways they don't recognize. It sorta moves from youth strategic leadership to youth task/tactical leadership. That's not a bad thing either, eh? Just different. As I recall, it was those large "successful" troops that contributed most to the BSA's current recommended program which Kudu dislikes.

 

Beavah

 

[Stosh 3452]

:^) It isn't theory. Cub Packs do it all the time. I came from a Cub pack of 135 members, 12 dens. Take that structure and pare down the "dens" to 6-8 boys and put a boy DL in place of the adult (boy-led, of course) and then replace the CM with SPL and the Pack Committee with the troop officers and all the adults are replace by boy-led leaders. It's not theory, BSA does it all the time.

 

Stosh

[Eagledad 2779]

>>The issue is that Kudu is proposin' that a central piece of the program he envisions is a SM who has the skill, talent, and listening ability to recognize the innate talents in each boy and to steer 'em into positions through direct mentoring.

[Kudu 186]

Beavah writes:

 

"So now let's continue the thought. What happens beyond those two weeks (and first two years)? A hands-on adult mentor can recognize the talents of individual boys and steer 'em in a small group of a half dozen or so. But as the unit gets bigger, that's harder and harder to do, eh?"

 

Is it?

 

At a certain point Top Dog (being Top Dog) takes over.

 

What else does a Scoutmaster have to do with his free time but figure out who the other natural leaders in a Troop are, and point them out to Top Dog. After you have done that once, Top Dog starts to figure that out for himself. All an adult has to do is recognize when a Patrol is dry, well-fed, and happy.

 

A 14 or 15 year-old can run a meeting without the other Scouts hearing an adult voice from 7PM to 8:25. And there is nothing sweeter than to watch the adults in the adjoining campsites at a Camporee steal glances as your Scouts unload the cars and set up the campsite by themselves.

 

A Top Dog on fire is the equal of most adult volunteers, except for experience and judgement.

 

Because we look at "modern" Scouting through the abstract lens of Leadership Development, classroom Advancement, and Troop-wide elections, it is WAY too easy to OVERTHINK this Beavah.

 

The BSA program before 1965 was A BOY'S GAME.

 

When you incorporate Bill Hillcourt's techniques into a "21st century" Troop, it becomes a boy's game again. What the BSA called "Real Patrols" are INTUITIVE to boys because a Patrol in the woods is literally part of a boy's DNA.

 

Many people confuse "literal" with "figurative," as in "I was so startled I literally jumped 10 feet off the floor!"

 

But I mean how a Patrol of boys acts in the woods is REALLY part of human DNA.

 

All you need to experience it first hand is to spread your Troop's Patrols out as Baden-Powell recommended. If you are hopelessly addicted to BSA training then why not have a special campout where a Patrol Leader who has staffed NYLT can take his Patrol Baden-Powell's suggested 300 feet away. A Patrol Leader who has participated in NYLT 200 feet, and Patrol Leaders who have gone through TLT 100 feet.

 

Everyone makes fun of me for that simple idea. I wonder why. Most people read Scouting forums for practical ideas that they can use this week. Nobody makes fun of Scouters who suggest treating teenage Boy Scouts like Cub Scouts, with ideas like movie nights or "lock ins" at a local museum.

 

But for some reason the FUNDAMENTAL SOURCE OF ADVENTURE in Scouting before its decline in 1972 is considered to be beneath contempt. An idea to be ridiculed.

 

But these are not my ideas, as our distinguished

[Beavah 205]

This kid is a true Top Dog. He has an effortless command of the room whenever he stands up, but in the ten months I have been volunteering I never saw him...

 

Yah, I think you're missin' my point and Eagledad's, eh?

 

You're claimin' that the BSA POR bit is what's causin' the troop not to recognize and develop its "Top Dog." I think the real issue is that finding adults who are good at that kind of mentoring is what's really tough. As Eagledad puts it, "I think direct mentoring (as you put it) requires an even more complex set of skills required to succeed."

 

That's the rub, eh? You could write up some materials that say "find and empower your top dog" and most adults wouldn't succeed. They'd pick the smart, nice kid. Or their own son. Then they'd punish the top dog for bein' disruptive when the nice kid was tryin' to lead. What you're talkin' about relies on a genuine depth of expertise and kid-sense, eh? But your average adult doesn't spend enough time around groups of unrelated kids to really have a feel for doin' that well.

 

Now personally, I don't think troops really succeed at the mission without that "right sort" of adult leader, eh? But if yeh have that guy, he can make an election work just by how's it's framed and mentored. It's not the techniques that matter so much as the vision of the adults and their ability to listen with all their senses to the lads. Unlike Eagledad, I don't really think it's possible to do the job well for lots of boys just by havin' 'em follow some written materials, eh? Either yours or Hillcourt's or the BSA's. All that engenders is lots of folks quotin' passages at each other to thump their chest and prove they're right, whether it's ACP&P, G2SS, NYLT, or BP's 300-foot rule. Those things are all good resources to give a good mentor an extra tool or two, but the usefulness of each tool just depends on the lads and the mentor. A good mentor can find a top dog, but a good mentor can also make an election work. A poor mentor will mess up both. BobWhite makes this point, but he talks about it in terms of the majority of scouters not understandin' training.

 

In reality the only thing thing that proves us right is what we add to the life of each boy. IMHO, that doesn't come from any of those rules or materials or whatnot. It comes from the mentoring and example of key leaders. Like your "top dog", I don't think we can teach that. I think we find it.

 

Beavah

 

[Eamonn 61]

Without wishing to come off sounding rude!

 

I was a Boy Scout in the UK. (Pre-Advanced Party Report) and was a Scout and Scout Leader (SM) After the report. (1969)

Much of what I think I'm reading seems like twaddle to me.

 

We had Scout Groups. (Pack, Troop and depending on the date at the time different groups for older Scouts.)

Little Lads moved from the Pack to the Troop on or very close to their eleventh birthday.

Of course not all boys turn eleven at the same time! So there was no large influx of new Scouts at any one time.

Patrols were always made up from a group of Boys who were in most cases all different ages.

There was no such thing as any type of election.

99.9% of the time the PL was the oldest Scout, who had an APL who was the next oldest. Who would fill the P/L's spot when he aged out.

The SPL didn't have very much responsibility, at least nothing like he is supposed to have here in the BSA.

If and when a new Patrol was needed (The Troop had grown) The PLC would meet and give their ideas to the Scout Leader.

Again the choice was made from the oldest Scouts.

The Scout Leader was still tasked with the job of training the youth leaders. Sometimes the oldest Lad was the best choice, a lot of times he was just the next Lad that the Scout Leader had to work with, train and help develop.

As far as possible when a eleven year old joined a Patrol, this Patrol was the Patrol he'd be in for his entire time in the Troop. He would benefit from seeing how things were done and at times what worked and what didn't.

As adult leaders we really don't have a lot of say in the youth leaders we have. It makes very little difference if they are selected by age or by election. Our job remains the same.

One big difference was of course that in the UK we didn't have all the changes. A Lad who was a P/L at an early age remained a P/L until he left the Troop.

Eamonn.

 

[Buffalo Skipper 13]

OK. I hear yall going back and forth about this. Kudu, I know what you have said here, but lets say you have a successful troop (by modern BSA expectations); how do you make the transition?

 

My point is, how do you get the scouts who have worked with this program for one to five years make this adjustment and change their way of thinking? Admittedly, I am one of those who, as you suggested see it as WAY too easy to OVERTHINK this process, with all the TLT, JLT, NYLT, NAYLE and all the other leadership management stuff out there. Interestingly, our OA lodge runs an annual Green Bar weekend, but of late it has become overshadowed by the Merit Badges which have begun being offered as part of the Green Bar Weekend. On the flip side, our council has never offered a NYLT, or other leadership training (at the Boy Scout level).

[SR540Beaver 116]

Buffalo,

 

Are you sure your Green Bar weekend was not NYLT? I'm not sure if the rules have changed recently, but BSA was allowing for local traditional names to be maintained as part of NYLT. I believe that what they asked was that instead of calling it say "Golden Acorn", it needed to be called "Golden Acorn National Youth Leadership Training". It is however possible that your council/OA does indeed run a non-standard home grown leadership program.

 

I've had the personal thought for some time that our council needs to tap the lodge as a resource for helping run the youth leadership training.