What does youth leadership mean?

I was reawakened to an idea or issue from a Scouter who like myself came up from being a youth into the ranks of an adult member.

We are educating youth as leaders (and more) yet we seem to have a two tiered leadership system as an organisation. There is a glass ceiling that no youth can rise above if they want to pursue leadership within the orgaisation. Why is this? Parents are not our best choice for leaders, as they have ulterior motivations rather than our mission. I say who better to lead this organisation than the youth. Lets prepare them for it and stand back. We will be better off, increase retention by providing meaningful opportunities to engage their interests, and we will truly be that youth organisation that everyone wants to be a part of, rather than disappoint our youth with a double standard.

What i am saying is training youth for leadership is a path, not an end. What is really the goal here? to have youth come to a course or meetings, or to train them for the real thing? We don't need Youth Commissioners in areas, and councils! We need Commissioners that are youth members. We need scouters that are youth members. We need trainers that are youth members. We need directors and field execs etc that are and were youth members. Lets train them for that. Not every youth are going to be suited for a commissioner role, but may like to motivate younger kids, may like to plan events, may be that hero that inspires your young Scouts. they may be that person at that press conference that says "Yes, Scouting is for real. I was taught how to lead as a child, and now I am leading the whole organisation. Where else can that happen?"

When we are providing a "program" we are doing nothing more than entertaining. We are guilty of this as an organisation (jumpstart, Program builder) and as a section(we all know). Currently we have nothing to offer that is better or different from any other entertainment that youth can access with far less effort. They need our help to make their own program.

I tend to agree in principle but one thing I've been told numerous times (including by you at the Rover WB1 course) is that we (adults) need to be respectful of the restricted amount of time available to youth members (ie. Venturers and Rovers) due to their school/work schedules.

I would LOVE to turn my Area Commissioner responsibilties over to youth but can they put in the time required? I am easily putting in the time equivalent of a full time job with my scouting responsibilities. Can the youth do this? By the end of November I'll have attended nearly 15 group committee meetings and/or section visits. Can the youth do this? I met last night with members of a new Rover Crew started in my area and none of them had done anything towards the action items from the first meeting two weeks ago. They hadn't even talked to each other once. Granted this may be because they haven't been properly trained on how to do things.

I know of a few youth who could fulfill the responsibilties and would do so. However, most youth I visit want to be participating in the program rather than running it. Your mileage may vary!

Garth

Parents are not our best choice for leaders, as they have ulterior motivations rather than our mission.

As a parent who became a leader I resent this remark and it's implications. Perhaps it's because I was involved in Scouting as a youth that I'm committed to Scouting's mission.

More effective vetting in the VRAD process and training may also move a parent from solely being there for to have quality time with their child to someone who is committed to Scouting's mission.

This also leads to the question - where do we get leaders from while we're training the youth?

What i am saying is training youth for leadership is a path, not an end...

Agree...with this and the remainder of your points.

When we are providing a "program" we are doing nothing more than entertaining. We are guilty of this as an organisation (jumpstart, Program builder) and as a section(we all know). Currently we have nothing to offer that is better or different from any other entertainment that youth can access with far less effort. They need our help to make their own program.

If all we are doing are providing "entertainment" then we are truly failing in what Scouting is all about. But what we do provide must be entertaining or else it will not attract and keep the youth.

“the bait that the fisherman puts on the end of his hook generally has nothing to do with his own dietary preferences
but should, in contrast, correspond to the tastes of the fish.” -Baden Powell 1909

I know there are many pressures on a young person's time. We compete against a great many needs. What do our programs provide the adolescent and young adult? Are they designed by those youth with passive guidance from adults, or are we just guessing what youth need and want? Did we guess 20 or 30 years ago? Youth certainly have different needs today.

Here is my suggestion. We need a framework where youth direct their own programme. For instance, we suffer from a nostalgic memory of Rovering from a different culture. Chinook council has a mere 40 or so rovers. That speaks volumes on the success of our entire Scouting program when so few choose to complete our progressive system of education. (If 95% of youth dropped out of school in grade 8 in Canada, even the ministry of education would notice something was not right.) People find time to do the things they decide are priority. Young people are similar to adults in this respect. We need to balance the idea of service with a developmental and adaptive program that responds to the major concerns of the adolescent and young adult in our society. Adolescents and young adults only then can realise personal benefit, and truly desire to participate. What youth need for guidance and the troubles they will face are two things that only they are qualified to define. We all had different challenges in our generations. Adults do have a place. To poke and motivate, to suggest alternatives and possibilities, to protect, to be solid and true.

I bloody hate statistics, but here goes. . . There is significant growth in adult member numbers who have never participated in a Scouting program as a youth. This can not be denied. There! hope that wasn't too painful or statisticky. Robert, you are not the normal parent volunteer. In fact, you are probably quite exceptional and well liked by the youth. I should qualify that in my last post I was speaking about initial motivations for joining. I also believe in most cases we can have some success in varying degrees to gaining volunteers commitment to the mission. What about the Scout Method? That is what scares most. It is where we have to support yet relinquish control and allow education to happen as it may, by the youth for their own benefit.

I also think it speaks volumes that the 40 Rovers you have haven't each invited one friend to join so you have 80. I agree with the concept that there is a program or a leadership gap such that older youth are leaving. But those that are staying are presumably enjoying it and want to be there. Why aren't they recruiting? Are they keeping it to themselves? Do they want others to join? I'm not questioning their motives but looking for some honest answers to what is perhaps a hard question.

Garth

Here is my suggestion. We need a framework where youth direct their own programme.

I spoke to this in the thread "Program Standards for Rovers" topic126.html. While I believe the youth need to direct their own program, clearly defined program standards, developed by Rover youth, would help give them a target to aim at.

For instance, we suffer from a nostalgic memory of Rovering from a different culture. Chinook council has a mere 40 or so rovers. That speaks volumes on the success of our entire Scouting program when so few choose to complete our progressive system of education. (If 95% of youth dropped out of school in grade 8 in Canada, even the ministry of education would notice something was not right.)

The difference being is, until a certain age, education is mandatory and more youth are discovering that dropping out isn't a wise career choice.

Scouting isn't the only organization fretting about youth retention. Churches have been dealing with this issue for at least two or three decades.

Adolescents and young adults only then can realise personal benefit, and truly desire to participate. What youth need for guidance and the troubles they will face are two things that only they are qualified to define. We all had different challenges in our generations. Adults do have a place. To poke and motivate, to suggest alternatives and possibilities, to protect, to be solid and true.

In other words, provide for WIIFM (what's in it for me) while challenging them to look beyond themselves and their own needs.

I bloody hate statistics, but here goes. . . There is significant growth in adult member numbers who have never participated in a Scouting program as a youth.

So the challenge then becomes: how do we reach out to adults who were involved as a youth and get them interested in the program again? How do we challenge them to become the influence for today's youth that their leaders were for them?

I also think it speaks volumes that the 40 Rovers you have haven't each invited one friend to join so you have 80. I agree with the concept that there is a program or a leadership gap such that older youth are leaving. But those that are staying are presumably enjoying it and want to be there. Why aren't they recruiting? Are they keeping it to themselves? Do they want others to join? I'm not questioning their motives but looking for some honest answers to what is perhaps a hard question.

Garth

The answer to this is gained by discussing with youth. I know a great many of Scouters who have done so. Here are the main reasons I'm aware of that we tend to lose older kids as they progress:

1) Bring a Friend style recruitment is much less effective as complex social order sets in. This is readily apparent in the older grades, as youth start to shuffle activities more around friend groups and less around parental influence.
2)Interests that diverge from the outdoors. Let's face it, not all youth want to participate in the outdoors. They get older and just lose interest.
3) More options are available to them. The market widens, and other interests may supersede. We lose many youth to cadets, competitive sport, and lots of really great other options. Kids have so many options these days, we are competing in a large market at the 13-18 year old range, even within the schools themselves.
4) Scholastic pressure. A great number choose to concentrate on school, especially when going away at the rover age. This starts in Venturers.
5) Rovers specifically is expensive to register in for a self driven program they can essentially do on their own. We see that with groups of friends who like things like climbing etc. They tend to just go off climbing, and so they probably should. It'd be nice to see them help out with the other sections, but they are 20ish...
6) Fundraisers. Rovers typically just plain don't. No money == no activities. See item 4.

To Wayne,
As far as attacking Parents as leaders for ulterior motives, lets get back in touch with the reality of youth programs. 11 year old kids cannot run their own program, they can't even really babysit themselves. At 14 you'd have Lord of the Flies. I think perhaps you missed the many options that exist to have youth input into the program. They are great, varied and included in program standards.

Seriously, what exactly are you proposing? That we leave them to do it themselves? They simply won't do it. Sounds like a total non-plan to me. Can you be specific about what structural change you propose? A youth as an Area Commissioner would simply not work. The first time there was a need to deal with a sensitive or legal issue this would be readily apparent. Believe me, the Commissioner jobs are more about problem solving than program management. That happens far more in the sections themselves, where feedback belongs. The small group should always be deciding its future as much as possible. It should not be the Areas dictating program.

So the challenge then becomes: how do we reach out to adults who were involved as a youth and get them interested in the program again? How do we challenge them to become the influence for today's youth that their leaders were for them?

In that, I could not possibly agree more. I think we need to actually ask them. Currently, we don't. When we do, we are pleasantly surprised (or at least that's been my experience).

I bloody hate statistics, but here goes. . . There is significant growth in adult member numbers who have never participated in a Scouting program as a youth. This can not be denied.

This idea deserves a deeper look. This means that, in the past, people who were involved in Scouting as youth tended to return as adults, but today, many who were involved as youth do not return as adults. This is a long-term version of the phenomenon Steve Kent has mentioned: each year, only 55% of last year's youth members continue (he usually states the same fact in the inverse, that 45% of the youth members are new).

So, today's youth try Scouting for a year and almost half of them decide not to continue. Today's adults who tried Scouting as a youth in large numbers don't want to be involved today. This points to long-standing dissatisfaction with what Scouting is providing. No amount of recruitment is going to fix this.

My stats show kids last a little longer than a year and a half (depending on their starting section); but not much more:

Starting Section Average
Colony 2.79 years
Pack 1.98 years
Troop 1.77 years
Company 1.58 years
Crew 1.00 years
Overall 2.21 years


Allan.

Thanks for catering to my fishing for ideas. I firmly believe that youth join because of a promise of excitement and adventure. Effective use of patrols will provide meaningful activities that cater to that. Guidance from the wise use of adult experience prevents mayhem. I really like the Lord of the Flies analogy. Also this adult influence teases out the character development in youth.

What I don't see as effective is multiple layers of structure and policy that have nothing to do with youth exploring the journey of life. Success could be attained if all of our efforts of policy development, fund management at councils and national were solely to provide a few things. for example:

National
1. A simple set of guidelines for education and adventure. BP&P is a huge document full of double talk, vague description, contradiction and self fulfilling bureaucracy. I even know lawyers that are critical of it.

2. corporate or organisational funding that promotes brotherhood. Jamborees,etc.

3. resources and guidance to adult helpers and youth leaders.

4. sponsor manual. how does a particular community make Scouting work?

Group
1. meaningful partnership that is integrated into every aspect of the community. We don't lose kids to soccer, church choir, hockey, baseball. these are things that Scouts are supposed to do. We need to recognise that our educational goals can be fulfilled by other people, other organisations, and we should use them, not be resentful or possessive. What is achieved by youth is our goal, not numbers or statistics.

2. organize parents to fund and support. not govern or control.

3. find respected and accomplished members of the community to provide guidance directly to youth programmes. with direction from capable youth.

4. accountability to sponsor/partner - wholly and solely.

Partners/Sponsors
1. accomplishing their own goals (which parallel Scouting ideals) by being stewards of the Scout method. Scouts Canada does not own it. They form partnerships because they see the Scout Method as a useful tool to develop youth of character and usefulness in their community, not because they see value in Scouts Canada's organisational structure and theft of their hopes and desires for the children in their communities.

2. collect or pay membership and user fees. We are a part of their structure, they can insure us, and provide for the program. Membership fees to Scouts Canada are for education of volunteers and sponsors, and for brotherhood events.


this is very idealistic, and we may struggle with these ideas. Definitely not complete or well reasoned. I hope you can poke holes in it, or add some meat to the skeleton provided. The basic premise here is that our youth OWN the movement, and our partners govern and make it flourish. As an intellectual exercise, it challenges the core of what we have built, practice daily and understand - and therefor should have some use.

Scouting was a youth movement, with a simple method of youth ownership and leadership. It was hijacked and became an organisation. What do the youth and partners have to say about this? In my last post I proposed a way that youth own the movement, and we are all guardians of this. I would rather be a knight in shiny armour than a commissioner. We spent some effort in the last decade reducing what we percieved as duplication. Was the question asked: Is Scouts Canada itself a duplication?

I hope I didn't scare everybody. I was just throwing some of my brain soup out for our stimulation. I would like to hear better ideas. I suggest that our organizational structure and corporate nature can be a detriment to youth leadership. It may not be flawed in theory, it is just vulnerable to abuse of our purpose. Who was it that said "Democracy is the worst political system, except for all the others."?

Hi Wayne;
As a youth, I think that we are very under-utilized in terms of the direction of this movement. Too often I will see committees of adult Scouters neglect the opportunity for youth input. However, that's only a starting point. Youth need to be part of the whole process, it's no longer sufficient to ask youth for their opinions. We need to develop leadership skills in our young membership early enough that they are enthusiastic and willing to be part of the process that sees that scouting remains a movement rather than an organization. Although we have Youth "Commissioners," please don't let that suggest that youth cannot fill any other capacity in the organization.
If we have a Venturer whose passions lie with developing his local camp property into a thriving programme centre, why are we not extending the invitation for that youth to become part of that camp committee? After a few years of getting to know the ropes, let's then offer that youth the position of camp chair. This should be a common-sense move, with the motivation of catching hold of the passion demonstrated by this youth. Conversely, this sort of idea is often misunderstood as a political and offensive move at ousting what can be described as a "dynasty" in some situations of volunteers that have held the position for decades.
The bottom line for everyone in this organization, is that while we each may have our own idea of what Scouting is or was, the youth of TODAY truly know what they want out of Scouting. They will come up with those bright ideas to further our movement exponentially, but we can't let that spirit be killed by politics, traditions, or narrow-thinking. Youth Leadership means that all volunteers in the movement support the ideas of young people, and enable them with the intellectual, physical, and moral support to accomplish what they set out to do. Simple as that.

Well said Alex. There is lots of debate on these forums about the purpose of scouting, especially about the means. We should always remember the ends: creating youth leaders that are "self-fulfilled as individuals and play a constructive role in society." Society and our world are changing, and youth are too. We need to remember that youth should be supported wherever their interests lie, whether that be camping or computer programming.

Couldn't agree more Alex. The more Youth we train up and put on Committees the better for Scouting. Teach them the ropes and let them then Chair if they are capable and have the necessary time. Scouting can only get better.
This "old Dinosaur" is convinced of that 1000%.
'f course, education comes first...