Should the US move to a one-unit approach?

[fred8033 1593]

Eagle dad wrote: "And I guess I understand the thinking of the Troop part of the program saving a struggling pack, but I really dont see how the same committee of the unsuccessful pack program could run a successful troop program. In other words, why would one half of the unit be successful while the other half isnt? Doesnt make sense to me. Wont bad leadership take down everybody? "

 

It's not about unsuccessful or poor leadership (i.e. the wrong people). It's that scouting takes time to "get"; to understand. For me, it was about five years. As a Tiger parent, I did a bit, but mainly watched and learned. As a wolf/bear parent, I started reading. As a Webelos parent, I was running the pack but still not quite "getting it". After a few years in leadership, you begin to understand what works. And even then, it often takes 10+ years to get enough experience to be good at it.

 

From my work experience running teams and mentoring people, I've never let anyone go without spending a long long time mentoring them, sending them to training, providing opportunities to learn and addressing issues. .... Scouting isn't that hard, but it takes years to get. Beavah hit it on the head when he mentioned mixed age patrols. Mixed age patrols are useful because of the mentorship. Troops guides work because they mentor. Pack adult leaders have trouble because they struggle and have little guidance.

 

I think we need to stop thinking of it as bad pack leaders failing. I think it's more about lack of guidance and mentorship leaving fresh new volunteers struggling to succeed. The result is frustration, drop-out and failed units.

 

....

 

I think of this idea very parrallel to local sports associations. Cities often have soccer, swim, gymnastics, baseball associations that provide programs for all youth from the very young thru high school (or until high school sports pick it up).

[Eagledad 2779]

>>It's not about unsuccessful or poor leadership (i.e. the wrong people). It's that scouting takes time to "get"; to understand.

[JMHawkins 15]

Beavah,

 

There's definitely something to what you say about reducing the number of overall committee members to reduce the adult interference. However, there's a difference between the programs, eh? A Pack needs a committee that does quite a bit. A Webelos scout, even with a couple of Bear Cub assistants, isn't going to plan the PWD. It's necessary and appropriate for a Pack Committee to have adults highly active in lots of things. It's at the Troop level where it can be a real problem when TC members take too big a role and step on the youth learning process. As far as a Crew committee, I've got no experience there, but I have to imagine it should be even less work than a Troop (though maybe Ships with an actually ship might add some complexities).

 

We've had lots of threads here about the difficulty some adults have making the transition from Cubs to Boy Scouts, about the (perfectly natural and understanable) tendency to continue doing the same things and unconsciously running a Webelos III program. I've heard from Venturing folks with successfull programs that one of the keys to succeeding with a crew is to not run it like a Troop, that the Advisor is not a Scoutmaster, and that Scoutmasters have the same difficulty shifting to a Crew Advisor role as Webelos DLs do becoming ASMs.

 

So, when two of the most common problems are about adults fumbling their transition from one level to the next, I'm inclined to think unifying the programs is heading in the wrong direction. That's one reason I'm sticking with my contention that the Uber Chair position (whether there are sub-chairs or not) is still an order of magnitude harder to fill effectively than the current CC positions. You're running multiple different projects with different needs and objectives, in your spare time. Outside of BSA paperwork, which could (and should) be solved in other ways, there's no real economies of scale to unifying. The Pack I am CC with has Den Chiefs from three different troops. The Troop I'm an ASM in sends Den Chiefs to two different Packs. You don't need the share a CC or COR to work with other units. Considering that the Pack/Troop combined unit in the next town down the valley from us just had the Pack fail, maybe it's even easier to work with units that don't share a committee. Our troop was willing to offer help to the Pack, but there was a big Kabuki dance necessary to avoid stepping on toes. If they'd just been another random Pack in the neighboring town, perhaps we could have done more to help.

 

 

Though wouldn't that mean that all troops should just be patrol-sized?

 

Ha, well, we're talking about the adults here, but the situation where a Troop is just a collection of Patrols is generally going to be better for the Scouts than if the Patrol is just a subdivision of a Troop. And from the entire leadership development POV, a PLC is a good way to introduce scouts who have mastered (to Scout-aged levels anyway) the skills of a PL into the world of 2nd level management.

[JMHawkins 15]

I think of this idea very parrallel to local sports associations. Cities often have soccer, swim, gymnastics, baseball associations that provide programs for all youth from the very young thru high school (or until high school sports pick it up).

 

Fred, I gotta say, that's a great example, but I think it proves the opposite of what you think. The folks who ran the Little League - and just the Little League - I played in as a kid sure seemed to have done a better job putting on an organized program than the consolidated organization I see today.

 

Now, I have to be fair and aknowledge there were probably lots of issues I never noticed or was never aware of as a kid that I do notice as an adult. However, I do know that as a kid, we had more practices, more access to the fields, more stability in coach tenure, and I don't recall ever having a scheduling foulup where our team and another team were double-booked for game or a practice field. Also, we played in the late spring and summer, when the weather was most amenable to baseball.

 

My son dropped out of little league. Coaches came and went, there were very few practices, we constantly showed up for a game or a practice to find the facilities closed, locked, or another team there thinking they had the game/field reserved. And the season started in February with snow still falling and ended in early June before the weather got decent. Half the games and practices were cancelled or rescheduled due to rainouts. We live in the Puget Sound region - it rains here A LOT in the spring. Playing baseball that time of year is idiotic. It's done to fit into the larger program of All Stars, Regionals, etc. Because of the needs of the 'advanced' programs, the basic program is displaced into a dysfunctional slot. The result is kids like my son are droopping out before they learn the skills to be in the "advanced" program.

 

I think two basic problems stemming from the unified approach are killing youth baseball. One, in tune with what I've been saying about it being harder to run a bigger program, the caliber of adult volunteers available to run the uber-program is not adequate the the challenges. Scheulding four or five leagues worth of fields, recruiting and retaining 5x the number of coaches, managing 5x the fundraisers, it's all too much for volunteers who have day jobs. Simply, it's easier to find 5 volunteers capable of running 1 program than it is to find 1 volunteer capable of running 5 programs. Running 1 program is relatively easy. Running 5 is really, really hard.

 

Two, when the programs are combined, the programs are in direct competition for resources. Well, weren't they before, when they were separate programs? Yes, but they were co-equals and each program was empowered to find hte best solution for their needs. As a combined program though, that's no longer the case - the individual levels are assigned solutions, usually by whoever is the most passionate about things. That means the Sports Fanatic Families with a huge desire to see their sons be althetic heros (my brother and his wife were this) run the show, which is why the advanced programs win out, because that's where these folks see their kids. It's like a Venturing committee running the Troop and Pack too, and short-shrifting the Pine Wood Derby because it doesn't help anyone summit Rainier.

[Beavah 205]

Yah, JMHawkins and Eagledad, keep in mind I'm just tossin' this stuff around. I think there are plusses and minuses, but I've seen a lot of international scoutin' where the one Group approach is common and successful.

 

A Pack needs a committee that does quite a bit. A Webelos scout, even with a couple of Bear Cub assistants, isn't going to plan the PWD.

 

A pack needs a committee that does quite a bit in da current program. Once yeh get out of that mentality, yeh realize that a group of Boy Scout aged boys from da same unit absolutely can plan and run a Pinewood Derby. In fact, they'd love to do it and probably do a better job than most pack committees.

 

So yeh see, it's only necessary to have "adults highly active in lots of things" because of the current program structure.

 

We've had lots of threads here about the difficulty some adults have making the transition from Cubs to Boy Scouts

 

Yep, that's because da Cubs and Boy Scouts are separate, different programs for adults. That's what makes da transition hard, eh? They never get to see Boy Scouting run at all until their kids cross over.

 

If instead when yeh entered as an adult yeh entered Scouting, and your child just happened to be in cubs this year, it becomes a very different thing. Maybe dad volunteers to help with da Ventures while mom helps with cooking for the Tigers. By the time the lad is movin' into Scouts, the parents have seen da whole program running for 5 years. That's not much of a transition for either them or their son.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[SeattlePioneer 144]

Like a lot of things in Scouting, if this "one unit" idea is adopted by national, individual units will probably have freedom to decide whether or not they want to adopt that model or remain as two units.

 

Heck --- we have "combined units" now with the Tiger Cub, Cub Scouts and Webelos programs combined in one pack! If a pack wanted to do so, they could set up three packs, one for each program.

 

For several years I've been working to coordinate the programs and leadership of the pack I belong to and a neighboring Scout Troop which needs more boys and for which I'm Unit Commissioner.

 

The Webelos Den was invited out to an afternoon of camping experience by the Troop, and they will probably combine with the Troop in attending the Klondike Derby in January.

 

The Troop committee that organizes the Troop popcorn sale assisted the pack in getting the popcorn sale started.

 

So you don't HAVE to have formal organizational ties in order to have cooperation between units.

 

Unfortunately, too often Scout units remain isolated from each other and don't see the opportunities and benefits for that co operation.

[fred8033 1593]

SeattlePioneer - What you describe is well meant, but fragile and doesn't go the extra mile. Your fighting against the Webelos program that tells dens to visit multiple troops and to shop around. One bad event and the Webelos den decides to go elsewhere. Then, your troop begins to fight for survival by recruiting Webelos from other packs or other sources ... and thus subverting any continuity that those packs and associated troops already have.

 

Plus your fighting issolation between unit committees and two groups of adult volunteers that barely know each other. In a one-unit approach, the adults know each other because they've been working together for years, building friendships and learning from each other.

 

To be honest, the units would still be pretty small size. It's not like running a 1000 kid sporting association. We're talking on average a 100 to 150 scout unit (40 to 60 cubs, 40 to 50 troop and 20 to 30 crew). Maybe larger. Maybe smaller.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

[Eagledad 2779]

>>A pack needs a committee that does quite a bit in da current program. Once yeh get out of that mentality, yeh realize that a group of Boy Scout aged boys from da same unit absolutely can plan and run a Pinewood Derby. In fact, they'd love to do it and probably do a better job than most pack committees.

[JMHawkins 15]

Yep, that's because da Cubs and Boy Scouts are separate, different programs for adults. That's what makes da transition hard, eh?

 

I get what you're saying Beavah, but I actually think the programs should be separate. And while a bunch of Boy Scouts could probably run a PWD, I think it's valuable for the Dads (well, Moms and Dads) to do it. Cub Scout age, it goes fast, and with my son a Webelos II now, I'm starting to feel the first stings of him growing up and wanting to be around his friends more than around his dad. Maybe I'm just reacting to that particular phase I'm in right now, but I really think it would be a shame to reduce the father-son interaction in Cub Scouts. You don't get that opportunity for very long, when your son is old enough to do some thinking but young enough to share it with you.

 

Seattle

 

Like a lot of things in Scouting, if this "one unit" idea is adopted by national, individual units will probably have freedom to decide whether or not they want to adopt that model or remain as two units.

 

Yep,that exactly what we have now. Aside from BSA streamlining some paperwork, I mean. It's just a matter of what BSA presents as "the right way" to do it, sort of like NSPs vs mixed-age patrols. Really there's nothing to stop a group of adults from running mutliple programs, from being a "One-Unit" outfit right now. BSA doesn't prohibit dual registration for adults in multiple units. People are entirely free to adopt this solution right now. But by and large they don't. Maybe it's because there aren't Program Helps for it, or because the UCs and on-line training don't guide them towards it, but I'm inclined to think it's because the folks running units don't feel like combining units will help them solve any problems, and would in fact often just create them.

 

We have a lot of overlap between the various units in our area right now (e.g. I'm a Pack CC and a Troop ASM. Another ASM is CM for the other Pack in town. The husband of the Pack Treasurer is a Troop MC, etc.). We also have the typical personality conflicts in any group of folks. The CM of the Pack I'm CC for doesn't get along with a couple of the committee members in the Troop. One of the ASMs doesn't get along with the CC of the other Pack. Nothing idiotic or juvenile, just folks who's personalities don't mesh well. By having separate units, these adults can contribute their talents happily without constant drama. The youth don't get whipsawed by it. We have good cooperation between the units, in part because we don't force adults who don't get along to work together. If we were all "one big happy unit" that wouldn't be the case, and I don't think we'd be all that happy.

 

Which gets me to fred's comment:

 

In a one-unit approach, the adults know each other because they've been working together for years, building friendships and learning from each other.

 

Building friendships is the glass half-full outcome. Building animosities is the other possibility. A one-unit approach is more of the utopian approach, where interpersonal conflict is amicably resovled and things always land shiny side up. The current approach accounts a little better for the people involved occasionally being human beings and making human mistakes, for the toast landing butter-side down.

[fred8033 1593]

Units don't work together today mainly because they are taught and structured to be separate units and the BSA documentation emphasizes the pack committee / program and the separate troop committee / program and yet another separate crew program.

 

It's nearly impossible to "LONG TERM" on-your-own work-together because we send our leaders to training and roundtable. BSA teaches differently and structures the paperwork differently. Everytime our unit leaders get training, we'd have to de-program them and teach them our flavor of scouting. They are just as likely to become oppositional as to follow the program.

 

=====================

 

In all our years as a pack, I've only seen one or two families leave the pack to switch to another pack. I've never seen a boy scout leave our troop for another troop. If personalities can get along for the five years of cubs and then the seven years of boy scouts, it seems reasonable that things could continue to work. I just don't see what's so special about a Webelos transition. Period. Why not after Tiger? Wolf? Bear? 2nd class? 1st class? Star? Life? IMHO, that Webelos transition creates way way more problems then it solves and it's only needed because the pack and the troop under the same COR opperate as separate units. That's the root of the problem. Pull them together and you solve many issues.

[Beavah 205]

And while a bunch of Boy Scouts could probably run a PWD, I think it's valuable for the Dads (well, Moms and Dads) to do it.

 

Now maybe it's because I'm past "dad" and well into "grandpa", but it seems to me that what would be really nice is for dads not to run pinewood derby, but to spend their time workin' with their son on pinewood derby. Let the Boy Scouts set up da track and da timers and flip burgers. The time to treasure as a parent is teachin' your son how to use tools and gettin' paint all over. Different strokes I guess.

 

Most parents burn out on "running" Cub Scout events by three years in. One of da most frequent things you'll hear is parents who just want "out" by the end of webelos because they're sick to death of "running" events. Let the Scouts do it, eh? Like Den Chiefs the way they are really meant to be. Give da parents the gift of bein' able to spend their time helpin' their Wolf with his Space Derby rocket.

 

Like I said, though, I think there are downsides. I'd be worried about da general attrition. While one-unit retention might be better, there's still gradual attrition from programs over time. Around the world there are fewer Ventures than Beavers no matter where yeh go. It's a pyramid of sorts, so yeh need a big base; perhaps bigger than what one CO could do for various reasons, includin' what JMHawkins and others have said about leadership capacity. Without da younger adult leadership that's more common around the world, it also might indeed bring the "mommies and daddies" stuff into da upper levels more readily, again by weight of numbers. Or not. Hard to say.

 

If it's done, it will need to be thoughtfully done, and of course there will be units that continue on their own way, as there should be. Yeh set da program materials to handle what's best for da broad middle, and then support exceptions.

 

Beavah