Eagle Projects Aren't Unit Activities

Here's an exchange from Ask Andy (an online column from a long-time Scouter and Unit Commissioner) about Eagle Projects.

There's a couple of levels of information going on in this exchange. First of all Andy does a good job of clarifying what actual policy is regarding Eagle Projects. They aren't unit activities and so do not fall under the oversight of the unit or Scouters. I'll add that Life Scouts conducting Eagle projects need as much latitude to actually lead the project as they can get. I have assisted with exactly three Eagle Projects in 25 years (one was my step-sons project). There is no way for me to go to a Scouts Eagle Project and not be the Scoutmaster.

The other thing to learn from this exchange is how  a well-intentioned, convoluted and ultimately wrong-headed approach is inflexible even in the face of a clear statement of policy.

Dear Andy,

I’ve respected you opinions in the past, but this time I think you’re wrong about two-deep leadership for Eagle projects, for a number of reasons…

1. In a Scout-led Troop, the Scouts are always in charge, but just because the Eagle candidate is in charge of his Eagle project doesn’t mean that we don’t need two-deep adult leadership.

2. The Eagle service project is a unit event in that it’s been reviewed and approved by the Scoutmaster and Troop Committee, and the Eagle candidate has encouraged his fellow Scouts to help him on the project by announcing it at Troop meetings, and his Scoutmaster has agreed to allow the Scouts’ participation to be counted as service hours.

3. Consider what would happen if a Scout gets hurt while working on an Eagle project and no adult leaders are present. Can we claim that it wasn’t a Scouting event and therefore we’re not required to have adult leaders there? I’d hate to see that in the newspapers.

4. "In-city" events that occur for less than a day don’t require tour permits, but they’re still considered unit events. Are you arguing that we only need two-deep adult leadership when a tour permit is required? That doesn't sound right to me.

(John Shriver, CC, Greater Alabama Council)

The short version is: Nope, nope, nope, and nope. Here’s why…

1. Yes, in fact, a Life Scout is absolutely in charge of his own project, and no one else should even suggest taking this away from him. The "Eagle project," after all, is much more about leadership than it is about service. Moreover, a Life Scout doesn't have merely other Scouts as helpers... he can recruit friends, neighbors, cousins, classmates, brothers or sisters, teammates, and on and on, so that having "adult troop leaders" hangin' around might actually interfere with rather than aid what this requirement is intended to accomplish.

2. The Eagle service project is absolutely not a "unit event," regardless of signatures. This endeavor belongs to the Life Scout and no one else. If a Scout "announces" his project and need for help at a troop meeting, this is just one of many venues open to him for recruiting. This makes it even more afield from a "unit event." As for a Scoutmaster "agreeing" to "allow" Scouts to "count" their time on a project toward "service hours," any Scoutmaster who didn't "agree" to this would need his head examined.

3. Regarding accidents, you're perhaps forgetting that the BSA-provided insurance is the very last insurance to kick in. All other insurances come first. This would include one's medical insurance if medical treatment proved necessary. The presence of adults from the troop would have no effect whatsoever on treatment or insurance. Besides, just what are you expecting to have happen? There are no chain saws or other powered equipment ever necessary to complete an Eagle project—hand tools should always be preferred, and this should be a part of the project plan. Moreover, no "headlines" would go away just because some troop adults were there and couldn't prevent the "accident."

4. If you carefully read the Guide to Safe Scouting FOR UNIT ACTIVITIES (that's the full title, and I've capitalized the part of the title we often overlook, for emphasis), you'll discover that it specifically states that there are events for which "two-deep leadership" aren't required, including, also, patrol meetings.

Thanks for providing the logic behind your answer. I appreciate it. Our difference stems from whether or not we view an Eagle project as being something outside Scouting. I don’t believe it is, and you do. While it must be performed for an organization other than the BSA, and people outside of Scouting can assist, it’s still controlled by a Scout and approved by Scouters. I don’t see any reason to define it as being separate from Scouting. We define what it is and set up fairly strict guidelines as to what must be done. How can we then say that it’s not part of our organization? The other difference is that I believe that two-deep leadership is an excellent idea for everyone involved (not for insurance reasons). I suspect that you do too. It may be restrictive at times, but then so are safety helmets and seat belts. (John Shriver)

No one until now said that an Eagle project is "outside Scouting." An Eagle project is "Scouting in action!" What it's not, however, is a "unit activity" (i.e., a "troop activity"). Therefore, two-deep leadership is absolutely not mandatory, for the same reason that a patrol of Scouts can have a meeting or even go out and do something all together and it's not mandatory that they have adults along—not because it's "outside Scouting" but because it's not a "unit activity." (As regards helmets and seat belts, these are laws.)

Comments

[CoyoteWanderer]

This is an interesting exchange.

I must admit to being a bit confused by the outlay of the topics. The introduction seems to imply that it is regarding the necessity of two deep leadership but the content is really about where the responsibility for the eagle project lies and how much the scouters should be involved.

As a leader in a co-ed scouting organization, we have implemented two-deep leadership for many years. The idea being that no leader will ever be alone with a single youth. This, as the writer implies but never actually states or explains, is as much about safety for the scouter as for the youth.

As a scouter, if a scout is working on a personal project and asked for assistance outside of scouting, I wouldn't feel bound by Scouts Canada's bylaws. Within scouting, I would have to look at the bylaws.

So a Venturer doing something for his Queen's Venturer Award, I would probably be required to have two deep leadership, although this can be accomplished with two youth and one leader in some circumstances.

However, in the absence of explicit bylaws requiring this, and you clearly point out that the bylaws for two deep don't require this, this is a matter best left to the comfort level of the individual. If a Scouter feels it is in his or her best interest to practice 2 deep leadership then absolutely they should.

I would guess that the approach appears to be, if the scout had asked a non-scouting person for the same assistance, they wouldn't be limited by the rules for an observer, so why shouldn't the same leeway be shown to a scouter that would be assisting in the same manner.

Really, for Scouts Canada, the answer seems to be that if an issue occurs and a Scout Leader is involved the negative press afforded the organization is sufficient enough to warrant requiring Scouters to always practice two deep leadership.

The arguments for both sides are clear though, and if a Scouter in your organization feels that there are reasons that they would request two deep leadership, whether this is a particular Scout Leader that causes them discomfort in the case of a Council Commissioner or if a particular Scout causes a Leader to feel they would be more comfortable in a two deep situation then the rules should allow those choices. The first circumstance being a far more "sticky wicket" then the second, I would guess.

[Dave H]

I believe whether or not an Eagle Scout project can be considered a "unit activity" might depend on what it involves. However, I would guess the vast majority of projects are NOT unit activities, even if the entire unit is invited by the Eagle Scout candidate to participate. I think that is where the confusion seems to come from. The project participation should be considered to be performed on an individual volunteer basis. I've never heard of a case where a unit makes a "unit decision" to work on a scout's Eagle project. In my opinion, a "unit activity" must be decided upon by the entire unit (by whatever the unit's decision process is: majority vote, PLs, or whatever). Just because the troop committee and scoutmaster approve a project doesn't mean the unit has collectively decided to perform work on the project "as a unit". If a troop were to do that (make a collective decision to participate or not), they really are undermining the responsibilities of the Eagle candidate.

As for the need for two-deep leadership during project activity, I think the adults involved need to determine if there might arise a situation where an adult leader could wind up alone with a single scout. That is really the core question. If the situation can be avoided without two-deep leadership, it's probably not necessary. Concerns over non-affiliated adults on projects should be addressed by the scout managing the project (example, mandate a buddy system for all scout and other youth volunteers working on the project). Scouts should have already been taught not to put themselves in that situation (being alone with a lone adult). However, I'd advise the Eagle candidate it is his responsibility to make sure safe scouting is being followed while his project work is performed and he should ask for help in this area if needed (like when dealing with uncooperative adults that might be helping on the project).

[Scott Hadaway]

While I agree that the project is 100% the Eagle Candidate's, part of the leadership is proper planning which includes following the unit committee, local council and troop policies. If for instance an Eagle Candidate came to the unit committee and was told "you must provide proper first aid and pull a tour permit" as a contingency to their approval of the project, the Eagle Candidate must provide those two items. This is in line with the Eagle Candidate being required to provide a building permit at the request of the beneficiary. This isn't cut and dry and blanket statements simply don't fit. There are a number of Councils that require Tour Permits for ALL Eagle projects even though some fall outside of the normal requirements for a Tour Permit. Additionally, any time a Scout is involved with any event related to Scouting, an Activity Consent Form is required. While the Eagle Project may not be a Unit Event, Scouts from a unit taking part must have this form completed. This too is something any good leader should be requesting. As the Eagle Project is a measurement/test of the Scout's ability to lead, not having the proper paperwork completed is a sure sign of failure on either the Candidate or the person(s) advising him.

[Clarke Green]

Thanks for commenting Scott.

I'll have to disagree. Tour permits and permission slips simply are not required for Eagle projects.

If you can show me a statement in the guide to Safe Scouting, the Eagle Project Workbook or the Advancement Committee Guide directing Eagle candidates to make such arrangements I'll change my mind.

As to Troop or Council policies to this effect I have yet to see one. Troops and Councils should not create polices that contravene those established by the B.S.A.