http://www.scoutbase.org.uk/ps/activities/homecontact.pdf

Whilst I can see why some people may find it difficult to recruit suitable  
people to fulfil this current role, and that the use of technology should  
be reviewed, I'm not convinced by the suggestions put forward.

It all seems a little wooly.

Any other comments?

Tony

-- 
Tony Mochan
Cub & Scout Leader, 20th Dundee
www.20thdundee.org.uk

On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 02:08:45 +0100, "Tony Mochan" 
wrote:

>http://www.scoutbase.org.uk/ps/activities/homecontact.pdf
>
>Whilst I can see why some people may find it difficult to recruit suitable  
>people to fulfil this current role, and that the use of technology should  
>be reviewed, I'm not convinced by the suggestions put forward.
>
>It all seems a little wooly.
>
>Any other comments?
>
On a quick scan proposal 3:2 implies that a home contact is required
for regular Troop meetings. WTF? 

Not happening here.  I'd need to update the HC with the register every
week. 

Makes me think of people with nothing better to do ... 

Ewan Scott
http://www.claytonwestscouts.org.uk

http://www.whitleybeaumont.co.uk

Ewan Scott wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 02:08:45 +0100, "Tony Mochan" 
> wrote:
> 
>> http://www.scoutbase.org.uk/ps/activities/homecontact.pdf
>>
>> Whilst I can see why some people may find it difficult to recruit suitable  
>> people to fulfil this current role, and that the use of technology should  
>> be reviewed, I'm not convinced by the suggestions put forward.
>>
>> It all seems a little wooly.
>>
>> Any other comments?
>>
> On a quick scan proposal 3:2 implies that a home contact is required
> for regular Troop meetings. WTF? 

I don't think it says that - but it does say that for any activity you
should have a "procedure" for dealing with a need to contact parents, or
for parents to contact you - for regular Troop meetings that could be 
just having a list of members with telephones somewhere in a draw at the 
HQ and the parents having one of the leaders mobile numbers - or making 
sure that the list is taken with the Leaders to the activity if it is 
not in the HQ...

> Not happening here.  I'd need to update the HC with the register every
> week. 
> 
> Makes me think of people with nothing better to do ... 
> 
> Ewan Scott
> http://www.claytonwestscouts.org.uk
> 
> http://www.whitleybeaumont.co.uk

>>> It all seems a little wooly.

It does, I can see why they are trying to make it more flexible but I think 
there should be some minimum standards somewhere, i.e. for all overnight 
experiences there should be a home contact as we have now

That said why cant that person be someone on the camp, provided that the 
whole leadership team know about the procedure and either the GSL or DC 
handle any emergency communications'.  What are the chances of the whole 
leadership dropping dead overnight for instance?  What happens if the whole 
leadership team, for instance are tied up with an emergency?

In my view, general communication during activities needs to be kept to the 
minimum.

> I don't think it says that - but it does say that for any activity you
> should have a "procedure" for dealing with a need to contact parents, or
> for parents to contact you - for regular Troop meetings that could be just 
> having a list of members with telephones somewhere in a draw at the HQ and 
> the parents having one of the leaders mobile numbers - or making sure that 
> the list is taken with the Leaders to the activity if it is not in the 
> HQ...

I dont think it does anyway but but how many more local rules / urban myths 
are we going to see saying that we now have to have a home contact for 
regular troop meetings, ive seen it before, i think if you have some sort of 
minimum standard then people have something easy to aim for all the time and 
is not liable for abuse by the local rule makers.

In message , Ewan Scott 
 writes
>On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 02:08:45 +0100, "Tony Mochan" 
>wrote:
>
>>http://www.scoutbase.org.uk/ps/activities/homecontact.pdf
>>
>>Whilst I can see why some people may find it difficult to recruit suitable
>>people to fulfil this current role, and that the use of technology should
>>be reviewed, I'm not convinced by the suggestions put forward.
>>
>>It all seems a little wooly.
>>
>>Any other comments?
>>
>On a quick scan proposal 3:2 implies that a home contact is required
>for regular Troop meetings. WTF?
>
>Not happening here.  I'd need to update the HC with the register every
>week.
>
>Makes me think of people with nothing better to do ...
>
>Ewan Scott
>http://www.claytonwestscouts.org.uk
>
>http://www.whitleybeaumont.co.uk

A quick scan is not sufficient. If you read the proposals in their 
entirety, you will see that Home Contact is not a person any longer, but 
the system. For a normal meeting you will probably have the necessary 
system already in place, e.g. you have a list of everyone's contact 
details, and the parents have yours - job done.
-- 
Brian Smith
8th Muswell Hill Scouts
http://www.8thmuswellhill.org.uk

In message , Brian Smith 
 writes
>
>A quick scan is not sufficient. If you read the proposals in their 
>entirety, you will see that Home Contact is not a person any longer, 
>but the system.

The difficulty is that once you introduce a number of possible 
variations and options people have to decide which option is most 
appropriate and communicate to others which one they have chosen.  That 
brings its own complications for both Leaders and Parents as the system 
used last time may not the same system that is being used this time.

The old system worked after a fashion and in many ways was simple with a 
single point of contact locally provided that a suitable person was 
available and willing to act.  With the advent of mobile phones things 
have changed.  The system must accommodate simple situations, from we 
have been delayed and are going to be a little late getting back to more 
complex things such as a major accident in which there could have been a 
fatality.  Leaders may need the ability of communicate with someone 
locally and Parents may need to be able to communicate with the Group in 
certain circumstances.  But Leaders may not have the time or may be 
otherwise engaged sorting things out if there are problems and may not 
be in a position to talk to each Parent in turn so sometimes having 
someone local can help filter and manage the flow of communication.

The advantage of a simple single home contact system is that Parents 
should not be contacting the Leaders or YP direct and the Leaders and YP 
do not need to speak to all the Parents.  The home contact can 
communicate and co-ordinate when required.  However if all or most of 
the YP have mobile phones and Parents know the Leaders mobile phone 
numbers things won't work that way unless they are turned off or out of 
range.  We all know most YP cannot go anywhere without their mobile 
these days so unless you ban them or collect them in the first line of 
contact will be direct and if anything happens that will often be long 
before you can have any chance of managing the situation.
-- 
Paul Harris

On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 12:47:49 +0100, Baggy
 wrote:

>I don't think it says that

Well proposal (3) says "all activities / events, regardless of its;
location, size, duration or type."

Pretty unambiguous to me!

Q&A (2) explicitly states you do.


OK, I accept these are proposals, but the worst "backside covering"
options have a nasty habit of becoming reality irrespective of what
the grass-roots actually want or the majority think are the common
sense options.



Jim

On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 15:08:06 +0100, Jim  wrote:

> On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 12:47:49 +0100, Baggy
>  wrote:
>
>> I don't think it says that
>
> Well proposal (3) says "all activities / events, regardless of its;
> location, size, duration or type."
>
> Pretty unambiguous to me!
>
> Q&A (2) explicitly states you do.
>
>
> OK, I accept these are proposals, but the worst "backside covering"
> options have a nasty habit of becoming reality irrespective of what
> the grass-roots actually want or the majority think are the common
> sense options.

The problem, as I see it, is not the proposals as such, but the way that  
they may be understood, or misunderstood.

I can see a big difference between a bunch of Explorers going off for the  
weekend, and if they are going to be late home, phoning their parents  
themselves, whereas, it is unrealistic to expect a group of Beavers to  
behave in the same way, even if they do have their own mobiles!!!

The problem arises when, for instance, the BSL doesn't understand the  
importance of the Home Contact system, and doesn't successfully setup the  
system to cope with all eventualities.

At the moment, with the current system, I know of lots of people who don't  
grasp the reason that it is there, and don't think about it.  For instance  
... bus load of 50 travelling out of area for the evening (1 hour  
journey).  Home Contact currently required.  One appointed.  If there was  
a problem requiring phoning parents, how long would that take?  Is there a  
cascade system set up?  It has in the past taken that one person longer  
than the (revised) journey home to get in touch.  Others who allow mobiles  
at camp have been caught out with news (incorrectly) reaching home before  
the home contact has been in touch.

There is no easy solution, but allowing the woolly language in that  
document to me is a recipe for disaster, during a disaster!

Tony

-- 
Tony Mochan
Cub & Scout Leader, 20th Dundee
www.20thdundee.org.uk

In message <op.uejqulzw700lht@mochalap>, Tony Mochan 
 writes
>
>The problem, as I see it, is not the proposals as such, but the way 
>that they may be understood, or misunderstood.
>
I agree, the more flexibility and options the more choice people have 
and the more confusion that can result between both Leaders and Parents. 
The difficulty is that if asked most Leaders would say give us the 
choice to make sensible arrangements but in reality how many would 
actually do so. I would expect that being human nature they would all 
take the easiest route.

>I can see a big difference between a bunch of Explorers going off for 
>the weekend, and if they are going to be late home, phoning their 
>parents themselves, whereas, it is unrealistic to expect a group of 
>Beavers to behave in the same way, even if they do have their own 
>mobiles!!!
>
>The problem arises when, for instance, the BSL doesn't understand the 
>importance of the Home Contact system, and doesn't successfully setup 
>the  system to cope with all eventualities.
>
The problem is in addressing all eventualities.  Say the Parents need to 
make contact because someone has been rushed to Hospital or their plane 
is delayed and they won't be back in time to collect little Johnny. Say 
the Leaders will be a little late getting back due to a puncture or 
mechanical problem etc.  But what if there has been a major accident, it 
might never happen but would the same system cope.  What if they decide 
to use mobiles and then find that the camp site doesn't get a signal, 
there are all sorts of possible combinations.

>At the moment, with the current system, I know of lots of people who 
>don't  grasp the reason that it is there, and don't think about it. 
>For instance  ... bus load of 50 travelling out of area for the evening 
>(1 hour journey).  Home Contact currently required.  One appointed.  If 
>there was a problem requiring phoning parents, how long would that 
>take?  Is there a  cascade system set up?  It has in the past taken 
>that one person longer  than the (revised) journey home to get in 
>touch.  Others who allow mobiles  at camp have been caught out with 
>news (incorrectly) reaching home before  the home contact has been in touch.
>
>There is no easy solution, but allowing the woolly language in that 
>document to me is a recipe for disaster, during a disaster!
>
I agree it is a little to woolly and verbose to work as it is, some 
people need something that is nearer to black and white even if they are 
allowed to choose either A, B or C.
-- 
Paul Harris

ways was simple with a
> single point of contact locally provided that a suitable person was 
> available and willing to act.  With the advent of mobile phones things 
> have changed.  The system must accommodate simple situations, from we have 
> been delayed and are going to be a little late getting back to more 
> complex things such as a major accident in which there could have been a 
> fatality.  Leaders may need the ability of communicate with someone 
> locally and Parents may need to be able to communicate with the Group in 
> certain circumstances.  But Leaders may not have the time or may be 
> otherwise engaged sorting things out if there are problems and may not be 
> in a position to talk to each Parent in turn so sometimes having someone 
> local can help filter and manage the flow of communication.
>
> The advantage of a simple single home contact system is that Parents 
> should not be contacting the Leaders or YP direct and the Leaders and YP 
> do not need to speak to all the Parents.  The home contact can communicate 
> and co-ordinate when required.  However if all or most of the YP have 
> mobile phones and Parents know the Leaders mobile phone numbers things 
> won't work that way unless they are turned off or out of range.  We all 
> know most YP cannot go anywhere without their mobile these days so unless 
> you ban them or collect them in the first line of contact will be direct 
> and if anything happens that will often be long before you can have any 
> chance of managing the situation.
> -- 
> Paul Harris

Have to say that whilst these things are supposed to work like this, we 
never use them in this way. The home contact is an emergency system for us. 
If a parent wants to talk about something, they phone and leaves a message. 
I will then deal, ignore or get back to them. As the home contact is a third 
party not related to anyone, they just aren't able to really to deal with 
many issues.

No mobiles for YP thought - absolutely banned.

Having said all that, if the the proposals went through, then I would 
probably stay as I am - 3rd party for real emergencies and direct for other 
stuff. Year we burnt down cub camp it seemed to work ok!

Rich

In message <lpsgk.29748$E41.17007@text.news.virginmedia.com>, Richard 
Hunt  writes
>
>Have to say that whilst these things are supposed to work like this, we
>never use them in this way. The home contact is an emergency system for us.

I think that you will find that it is for most people.

>If a parent wants to talk about something, they phone and leaves a message.
>I will then deal, ignore or get back to them.

Again similar to most as once the Parents have the Leaders mobile number 
they tend to go direct.  If the YP had their mobile phones then they 
would probably be going direct to them as the first point of contact.

>As the home contact is a third
>party not related to anyone, they just aren't able to really to deal with
>many issues.
>
But are useful in a real emergency.

>No mobiles for YP thought - absolutely banned.
>
I see that happening less often than it was but the majority do still 
take that line with the younger sections Explorers though are more 
difficult to separate from their mobiles.

>Having said all that, if the the proposals went through, then I would
>probably stay as I am - 3rd party for real emergencies and direct for other
>stuff. Year we burnt down cub camp it seemed to work ok!
>
That would make sense and whilst not suggesting you are old the old 
hands would probably all do the same.  However imagine someone new 
coming along who has never seen the old system they might well think 
that there is no need for a home contact after all we all have mobile
phones these days so no problem.
-- 
Paul Harris

Some weeks ago, I wondered whether having a central home contact might
work.

For example, if in exchange for a small fee (£5.00) whether there
could be some kind of agency home contact perhaps run through HQ.

The event leader would book the event into the HQ website using their
membership number and upload a spreadsheet of contact details for all
the participants.

In return the event leader would get a reference number and access to
a free phone number in the event they have to instigate home contact.
They would also be able to print off a simple explanatory note that
they could pass on to parents that would inform them about how the
system works.

I think this might work well.

ATM, I am able to call upon about three people in the group (all
experienced Scouters) to be home contact when I take my section out
for the day.

However, other groups might not be in so fortunate a position and
perhaps having a central system (run by either HQ, County or District)
might be the way forward.

On 19 Jul, 02:08, "Tony Mochan"  wrote:

> Any other comments?

The 'proposals' make quite clear that they should apply to activities
involving adults;

"but the need for a system applies equally to all Members whatever
their age"

This is just plain silly, there is no 'need' for adult only parties to
set up a home contact system at all, adults can manage perfectly well
without home contacts.

Some adult groups may of course choose to have a home contact, but
that ought to be down to the discretion of the adults themselves and
not mandated by a Scout rule.

On 19 Jul, 17:02, "Tony Mochan"  wrote:

> The problem, as I see it, is not the proposals as such, but the way that
> they may be understood, or misunderstood.

Indeed.

Why do I suspect that taken together these proposals will be used (in
some areas at least) to require groups to have a 'home contact system'
for each and every activity and that the DC must be kept informed of
all activities (in writing, in advance etc) so that they can satisfy
the proposal;

"Proposal 6
The  most  appropriate  person  to  instigate  emergency  procedures
is  the
Commissioner (or their nominee) rather than a third party"

The proposals are well intentioned and do, at least in theory leave
all the decisions on what the home contact system should be down to
the leadership team, but how many of us would expect 'local rules' to
take away that freedom from the leaders ?

Can I suggest that if these proposals are to be taken seriously they
should add;

"Proposal 0
No local rules or variations of these proposals are permitted"









>
> I can see a big difference between a bunch of Explorers going off for the
> weekend, and if they are going to be late home, phoning their parents
> themselves, whereas, it is unrealistic to expect a group of Beavers to
> behave in the same way, even if they do have their own mobiles!!!
>
> The problem arises when, for instance, the BSL doesn't understand the
> importance of the Home Contact system, and doesn't successfully setup the
> system to cope with all eventualities.
>
> At the moment, with the current system, I know of lots of people who don't
> grasp the reason that it is there, and don't think about it.  For instance
> ... bus load of 50 travelling out of area for the evening (1 hour
> journey).  Home Contact currently required.  One appointed.  If there was
> a problem requiring phoning parents, how long would that take?  Is there a
> cascade system set up?  It has in the past taken that one person longer
> than the (revised) journey home to get in touch.  Others who allow mobiles
> at camp have been caught out with news (incorrectly) reaching home before
> the home contact has been in touch.
>
> There is no easy solution, but allowing the woolly language in that
> document to me is a recipe for disaster, during a disaster!
>
> Tony
>
> --
> Tony Mochan
> Cub & Scout Leader, 20th Dundeewww.20thdundee.org.uk

"

On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 15:08:06 +0100, Jim  wrote:

>On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 12:47:49 +0100, Baggy
> wrote:
>
>>I don't think it says that
>
>Well proposal (3) says "all activities / events, regardless of its;
>location, size, duration or type."
>
>Pretty unambiguous to me!
>
>Q&A (2) explicitly states you do.

But it goes on to say that the Home Contact would become a procedure
and not a person.  Therefore, unless some muppet creates new local
rules, a mobile phone (or even the payphone down the road) and a list
of phone numbers at the HQ would seem to fulfil this adequately for a
Troop night.

It's notable that the emergency role is removed from the HC and given
to the relevant Commissioner.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 15:31:48 -0700 (PDT), Steve
 wrote:

>This is just plain silly, there is no 'need' for adult only parties to
>set up a home contact system at all, adults can manage perfectly well
>without home contacts.
>
>Some adult groups may of course choose to have a home contact, but
>that ought to be down to the discretion of the adults themselves and
>not mandated by a Scout rule.

The Home Contact for a group of adults could well, and entirely
validly, be the wife/girlfriend/whoever's[1] phone number in the
adult's mobile and vice versa.

Actually, it does appear that one of the mistakes of this is how it's
being done.  It would appear that the classic home contact requirement
is being abolished.  It would therefore make more sense to publicise
that as such, then to give the new rules a different name to emphasize
that it is not in the slightest bit the same thing other than at the
basic level (some means of calling home).

The misinterpretations I've read in this thread otherwise concern me
that there will be a lot of local rules arising from this.

[1] There are always awkward people like me, though.  I live on my own
some 200 miles away from my nearest next of kin.  This being the case,
I specifically do *not* want anyone calling if I'm injured etc, as it
would just cause my parents to panic, get in the car and drive those
200 miles in a totally unfit state to do so.  Better that I just get
the appropriate medical treatment and then make contact myself once in
a fit state to do so.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

In message , Neil Williams 
 writes
>
>It's notable that the emergency role is removed from the HC and given
>to the relevant Commissioner.
>
Does this mean that Commissioners must stay at home in future in case 
they are needed.  The advantage of arranging a home contact was that you 
had someone who would be available and knew that they were on duty, we 
all know that DC's are always on duty but it sounds like holidays are 
out.
-- 
Paul Harris

In message , Neil Williams 
 writes

>The Home Contact for a group of adults could well, and entirely
>validly, be the wife/girlfriend/whoever's[1] phone number in the
>adult's mobile and vice versa.
>
I always understood that the home contact should not be related to any 
member of the party just in case it is that particular person who is 
involved in an incident/accident.

>
>The misinterpretations I've read in this thread otherwise concern me
>that there will be a lot of local rules arising from this.
>
The more complex the rules the more chance there is of variations in 
understanding and of course as soon as that happens people will as you 
say invent their own local rules to fill the gaps.
-- 
Paul Harris

On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 17:10:07 +0100, Paul Harris 
wrote:

>In message , Neil Williams 
> writes
>
>>The Home Contact for a group of adults could well, and entirely
>>validly, be the wife/girlfriend/whoever's[1] phone number in the
>>adult's mobile and vice versa.
>>
>I always understood that the home contact should not be related to any 
>member of the party just in case it is that particular person who is 
>involved in an incident/accident.

Except that my reading of the new proposal is that that role (home
contact in the event of an emergency) becomes that of the relevant
Commissioner or HQ, depending on seriousness.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

On 20 Jul, 17:05, Paul Harris  wrote:

> Does this mean that Commissioners must stay at home in future in case
> they are needed.

Yes indeed, or their nominee.

> The advantage of arranging a home contact was that you
> had someone who would be available and knew that they were on duty

So simple and so obvious.

On 20 Jul, 17:10, Paul Harris  wrote:

> >The Home Contact for a group of adults could well, and entirely
> >validly, be the wife/girlfriend/whoever's[1] phone number in the
> >adult's mobile and vice versa.
>
> I always understood that the home contact should not be related to any
> member of the party just in case it is that particular person who is
> involved in an incident/accident.

In the case where there are children involved it should be obvious
that one of the childs parents is perhaps not the best choice for a
home contact.

In the case of an adult only party I cannot comprehend why a home
contact is deemed essential in the first place.

Even when the rules demand it, there is no reason why the home contact
for an adult only party cannot be a spouse etc.

I can only imagine that those who write such silly rules have little
experience of adult only activities.

>>
>>Makes me think of people with nothing better to do ...
>>

>
>A quick scan is not sufficient. If you read the proposals in their 
>entirety, you will see that Home Contact is not a person any longer, but 
>the system. For a normal meeting you will probably have the necessary 
>system already in place, e.g. you have a list of everyone's contact 
>details, and the parents have yours - job done.

I've reread and my thoughts remain much the same. People with nothing
better to do. 

As it happens, there is no additional work for us because we have a
nominal HC but we deal with any emergency from the campsite - as we
did with the District Camp evacuation this year - every Group did the
same thing, no-one used their HC to get kids off the site.

Time and time again I feel that the SA has teams who create work for
themselves. This document is just another example.

Ewan Scott
http://www.claytonwestscouts.org.uk

http://www.whitleybeaumont.co.uk

Ewan Scott wrote:
>>> Makes me think of people with nothing better to do ...
>>>
> 
>> A quick scan is not sufficient. If you read the proposals in their 
>> entirety, you will see that Home Contact is not a person any longer, but 
>> the system. For a normal meeting you will probably have the necessary 
>> system already in place, e.g. you have a list of everyone's contact 
>> details, and the parents have yours - job done.
> 
> I've reread and my thoughts remain much the same. People with nothing
> better to do. 
> 
> As it happens, there is no additional work for us because we have a
> nominal HC but we deal with any emergency from the campsite - as we
> did with the District Camp evacuation this year - every Group did the
> same thing, no-one used their HC to get kids off the site.
> 
> Time and time again I feel that the SA has teams who create work for
> themselves. This document is just another example.

I think the proposal to change the person who is responsible in an
emergency - by which I mean the scouts are involved in serious
injury or death - is a good one. I honestly think the person which
has been asked to be home contact may not have the understanding
of the movement or the skill to deal with a real emergency, and
probably they are very unlikely to be members. Seems daft to have
someone in this role that doesn't have some responsibility in the
movement.

However I can see some commissioners finding this very hard as the
ones I have known have other major commitments in their lives and
couldn't be there every minute of every day. They can delegate the
role, and probably will, but I still feel a central unit, perhaps
with county support, would be the best solution.

With regard to being able to contact parents for any activities,
even meetings, is just good practice. You keep records of
everyone's names and addresses, you ask parents for a contact
address and home number for camps (because they might be away from
home, at work or on holiday), and you use this information to make
contact with them. Who does the contacting is a local arrangement,
ideally supported by cascading messages between parents.

For longer and more distant events, a single person at home to
whom you can report what's happening at the event, and if
necessary get messages from parents is also useful. Removing the
emergency role means you choose someone useful, who doesn't have
to be available all the time, such as one's wife, another leader,
etc..

For parents to contact you in an emergency then a mobile number is
probably the best first line of defence, but there is also the
possibility of contacting you through the place where you are
staying and you can phone them back.

I think a single rule outlining the procedure for an emergency is
all that is required. Then the general need to be able to contact
parents and vice versa can be outlined in a factsheet so groups
can decide the best thing to do in their local circumstances.

I have nothing to say about the scouts having mobile phones,
except they are now a part of life, and they can be very useful.

Bill

In message , Neil Williams 
 writes
>
>Except that my reading of the new proposal is that that role (home
>contact in the event of an emergency) becomes that of the relevant
>Commissioner or HQ, depending on seriousness.
>
So a Commissioner in a large District has to stay at home ready all the 
time just in case they get a call.
-- 
Paul Harris

In message 
, 
Steve  writes
>On 20 Jul, 17:10, Paul Harris  wrote:
>>
>> I always understood that the home contact should not be related to any
>> member of the party just in case it is that particular person who is
>> involved in an incident/accident.
>
>In the case where there are children involved it should be obvious
>that one of the childs parents is perhaps not the best choice for a
>home contact.
>
But unless you tell people that they don't always think about it even if 
it is obviously to some of us.

>In the case of an adult only party I cannot comprehend why a home
>contact is deemed essential in the first place.
>
>Even when the rules demand it, there is no reason why the home contact
>for an adult only party cannot be a spouse etc.
>
I am not sure why an Adult party needs the HC system but with a mixed 
Group the Leaders Wife may not be suitable just in case something 
happens to the Leader.

>I can only imagine that those who write such silly rules have little
>experience of adult only activities.
>
Depends what you are thinking of, perhaps some of them have little 
experience of any activities beyond a sleep over.
-- 
Paul Harris

On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 09:42:32 -0700 (PDT), Steve
 wrote:

>Yes indeed, or their nominee.

So one person who knows what they're doing (for contacting HQ or
whoever) instead of one per group that's out and about who might not?

>> The advantage of arranging a home contact was that you
>> had someone who would be available and knew that they were on duty
>
>So simple and so obvious.

So still arrange one!  The new scheme has scope to operate pretty much
exactly the same way as the old one if you want it to.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 20:08:21 +0100, Paul Harris 
wrote:

>I am not sure why an Adult party needs the HC system but with a mixed 
>Group the Leaders Wife may not be suitable just in case something 
>happens to the Leader.

Indeed.  It might for instance be that the Leader whose parent or
spouse is HC is driving the minibus and it is involved in an accident,
injuring him/her and several YP.  In that case, the role isn't going
to be carried out properly, because the HC is going to be concerned
primarily about their son/daughter/husband/wife/whatever.

(I have very nearly been in the above position as a Leader some time
ago, though fortunately the accident was so minor that it only caused
a few hundred quid's damage to the cars and no injury to any party.)

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 17:58:41 +0000, Ewan Scott
 wrote:

>As it happens, there is no additional work for us because we have a
>nominal HC but we deal with any emergency from the campsite - as we
>did with the District Camp evacuation this year - every Group did the
>same thing, no-one used their HC to get kids off the site.

I can't actually remember what we did when our County Camp evacuated
due to very poor weather, but I have used a Home Contact "in anger"
once.  The situation was that we had just missed the bus we planned to
catch back from a hike (it was hike out, bus back).  Fortunately it
was possible to travel in the other direction but it meant an hour's
delay and parents were collecting from the bus station.  Standing in
the pouring rain at a bus stop with the shelter crammed with knackered
Scouts, it was a lot easier to phone one person than 15 parents.

That said, we could have set up (and do for Network) a bulk texting
system or similar that would have got the same information across to
roughly the same effect.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 20:02:25 +0100, Paul Harris 
wrote:

>So a Commissioner in a large District has to stay at home ready all the 
>time just in case they get a call.

Er, mobile phones?  A sensible Commissioner would also presumably have
a number of other trained nominees (let's say all the ADCs) so there'd
be a list of people to call if the first wasn't available.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

.
>
>I think the proposal to change the person who is responsible in an
>emergency - by which I mean the scouts are involved in serious
>injury or death - is a good one. I honestly think the person which
>has been asked to be home contact may not have the understanding
>of the movement or the skill to deal with a real emergency, and
>probably they are very unlikely to be members. Seems daft to have
>someone in this role that doesn't have some responsibility in the
>movement.

We find it very difficult to find an HC who will be available as
required, so we have a nominal HC, but any actual home contacting is
done by the on-site team.

Let's see. I'm out on a hike from camp, Johnny falls and breaks his
leg, I call the campsite, the camp leader, they call the HC, who calls
the parent. Or I call the Camp Leader and he calls the Parent, or
indeed I make the call direct. Why make it difficult?

>However I can see some commissioners finding this very hard as the
>ones I have known have other major commitments in their lives and
>couldn't be there every minute of every day. They can delegate the
>role, and probably will, but I still feel a central unit, perhaps
>with county support, would be the best solution.

I have to admit that the idea of us running a central HC unit is
laughable. How many of us have had need to call the Police about a
non-emergency ( or an emergency even) and the call doesn't go to the
local station, but to a regional call centre, who call the local
station, which may respond in due course. How we all complain about
the inertia in the system. And that is from a professional service.
Can you imagine the chaos we could have in Scouting, not to mention
the differing levels of standards and service.

>With regard to being able to contact parents for any activities,
>even meetings, is just good practice. You keep records of
>everyone's names and addresses, you ask parents for a contact
>address and home number for camps (because they might be away from
>home, at work or on holiday), and you use this information to make
>contact with them. Who does the contacting is a local arrangement,
>ideally supported by cascading messages between parents.

Yes, it is good practice, but you cannot rely on a cascade system. All
you need is one weak link in the chain and you end up with kids not
being collected.

>For longer and more distant events, a single person at home to
>whom you can report what's happening at the event, and if
>necessary get messages from parents is also useful. Removing the
>emergency role means you choose someone useful, who doesn't have
>to be available all the time, such as one's wife, another leader,
>etc..

Yes, but why not someone at the scene?  

>For parents to contact you in an emergency then a mobile number is
>probably the best first line of defence, but there is also the
>possibility of contacting you through the place where you are
>staying and you can phone them back.

>I think a single rule outlining the procedure for an emergency is
>all that is required. Then the general need to be able to contact
>parents and vice versa can be outlined in a factsheet so groups
>can decide the best thing to do in their local circumstances.
>
How many pages will it take to establish a single rule?

"The Leader of any Scouting activity must be able to access contacts
with parents or guardians from the site of the activity.

"In the event of residential events or events "away" from the home
area a central Home Contact is required. The normal Home Contact in
this instance would be the DC."

Ewan Scott
http://www.claytonwestscouts.org.uk

http://www.whitleybeaumont.co.uk

On 20 Jul, 23:25, wensleyd...@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil Williams)
wrote:
>
> Er, mobile phones?  A sensible Commissioner would also presumably have
> a number of other trained nominees (let's say all the ADCs) so there'd
> be a list of people to call if the first wasn't available.

Will Commissioners (or nominees) be able to perform this role
effectivly if they dont have access to the details of the activity,
where, who etc ?

On 21 Jul, 09:53, Ewan Scott  wrote:

> How many pages will it take to establish a single rule?
>
> "The Leader of any Scouting activity must be able to access contacts
> with parents or guardians from the site of the activity.

What about activities that take place in sites\areas where there is no
reliable mobile phone coverage or access to a nearby telephone
landline ?

On 21 Jul, 09:26, Steve  wrote:
> On 21 Jul, 09:53, Ewan Scott  wrote:
>
> > How many pages will it take to establish a single rule?
>
> > "The Leader of any Scouting activity must be able to access contacts
> > with parents or guardians from the site of the activity.
>
> What about activities that take place in sites\areas where there is no
> reliable mobile phone coverage or access to a nearby telephone
> landline ?

It might be a bit academic - as in those circumstances you woudn't be
able to contact the HC either!

Steve wrote:

> Will Commissioners (or nominees) be able to perform this role
> effectivly if they dont have access to the details of the activity,
> where, who etc ?

They'll be able to contact HQ with as much detail as they have, and
would probably be looking to go home and progress the matter there,
just as they no doubt would already do if any other serious incident
occurred.

I think we are talking about the rare serious incidents involving
multiple people here, not a broken leg or similar which doesn't
necessarily need anything until returning home (other than a call out
of courtesy), or just needs collection to be arranged.

Neil

Ewan Scott wrote:
> .
>> I think the proposal to change the person who is responsible in an
>> emergency - by which I mean the scouts are involved in serious
>> injury or death - is a good one. I honestly think the person which
>> has been asked to be home contact may not have the understanding
>> of the movement or the skill to deal with a real emergency, and
>> probably they are very unlikely to be members. Seems daft to have
>> someone in this role that doesn't have some responsibility in the
>> movement.
> 
> We find it very difficult to find an HC who will be available as
> required, so we have a nominal HC, but any actual home contacting is
> done by the on-site team.

Same here

> Let's see. I'm out on a hike from camp, Johnny falls and breaks his
> leg, I call the campsite, the camp leader, they call the HC, who calls
> the parent. Or I call the Camp Leader and he calls the Parent, or
> indeed I make the call direct. Why make it difficult?

I wouldn't call a broken leg an emergency. What tends to happen in
this case is that someone takes him/her off to hospital, probably
the  camp leader, and I would expect normally the scout/activity
leader would contact the parent and explain what had happened and
to discuss what they wished to do. In this situation the leader
will be able to give accurate information to the parent as soon as
it is available.

Informing the home contact about the event is something to be done
later once the leader decides what action needs to be taken.

>> However I can see some commissioners finding this very hard as the
>> ones I have known have other major commitments in their lives and
>> couldn't be there every minute of every day. They can delegate the
>> role, and probably will, but I still feel a central unit, perhaps
>> with county support, would be the best solution.
> 
> I have to admit that the idea of us running a central HC unit is
> laughable. How many of us have had need to call the Police about a
> non-emergency ( or an emergency even) and the call doesn't go to the
> local station, but to a regional call centre, who call the local
> station, which may respond in due course. How we all complain about
> the inertia in the system. And that is from a professional service.
> Can you imagine the chaos we could have in Scouting, not to mention
> the differing levels of standards and service.

The police have to prioritise, sometimes you don't get the service
you expect. The sort of thing that would involve the DC or
nominee, with support from a central service, would be a serious
road traffic accident or rescue services being called out.

>> With regard to being able to contact parents for any activities,
>> even meetings, is just good practice. You keep records of
>> everyone's names and addresses, you ask parents for a contact
>> address and home number for camps (because they might be away from
>> home, at work or on holiday), and you use this information to make
>> contact with them. Who does the contacting is a local arrangement,
>> ideally supported by cascading messages between parents.
> 
> Yes, it is good practice, but you cannot rely on a cascade system. All
> you need is one weak link in the chain and you end up with kids not
> being collected.

Well it's always worked for me. The parents you ring usually offer
to ring other parents or sort thing out  going to the HQ at the
appointed time and explaining what is happening. Though in these
times, this is less and less likely as scouts talk to parents
directly on mobile phones.

>> For longer and more distant events, a single person at home to
>> whom you can report what's happening at the event, and if
>> necessary get messages from parents is also useful. Removing the
>> emergency role means you choose someone useful, who doesn't have
>> to be available all the time, such as one's wife, another leader,
>> etc..
> 
> Yes, but why not someone at the scene?  

Because it's expensive calling people from abroad, or because you
might be too busy, often out of contact, and so forth.

>> For parents to contact you in an emergency then a mobile number is
>> probably the best first line of defence, but there is also the
>> possibility of contacting you through the place where you are
>> staying and you can phone them back.
> 
>> I think a single rule outlining the procedure for an emergency is
>> all that is required. Then the general need to be able to contact
>> parents and vice versa can be outlined in a factsheet so groups
>> can decide the best thing to do in their local circumstances.
>>
> How many pages will it take to establish a single rule?
> 
> "The Leader of any Scouting activity must be able to access contacts
> with parents or guardians from the site of the activity.
> 
> "In the event of residential events or events "away" from the home
> area a central Home Contact is required. The normal Home Contact in
> this instance would be the DC."

Bill

On 21 Jul, 09:53, Ewan Scott  wrote:
> I have to admit that the idea of us running a central HC unit is
> laughable. How many of us have had need to call the Police about a
> non-emergency ( or an emergency even) and the call doesn't go to the
> local station, but to a regional call centre, who call the local
> station, which may respond in due course. How we all complain about
> the inertia in the system. And that is from a professional service.
> Can you imagine the chaos we could have in Scouting, not to mention
> the differing levels of standards and service.

I have to agree, I suspect it would be a joke.

Problem is people assume IT and Computing is THE answer, and it can
be, but it needs adequate resourcing (i.e. lots of money).

Do the SA have a good track record in delivering well performing and
adequately resourced IT systems ?

Steve wrote:
> On 21 Jul, 09:53, Ewan Scott  wrote:
>> I have to admit that the idea of us running a central HC unit is
>> laughable. How many of us have had need to call the Police about a
>> non-emergency ( or an emergency even) and the call doesn't go to the
>> local station, but to a regional call centre, who call the local
>> station, which may respond in due course. How we all complain about
>> the inertia in the system. And that is from a professional service.
>> Can you imagine the chaos we could have in Scouting, not to mention
>> the differing levels of standards and service.
> 
> I have to agree, I suspect it would be a joke.
> 
> Problem is people assume IT and Computing is THE answer, and it can
> be, but it needs adequate resourcing (i.e. lots of money).
> 
> Do the SA have a good track record in delivering well performing and
> adequately resourced IT systems ?
> 
I don't know how you can come to this conclusion.

How many serious incidents are there within a year ?. I can only
recall of possibly one in the past 12 months, and that turned out
to be not an incident really.

But we need some real statistics for this.

Bill

On 21 Jul, 19:15, Bill Oldroyd  wrote:

> How many serious incidents are there within a year ?.

Very few fortunately.

On 19 Jul, 02:08, "Tony Mochan"  wrote:
> http://www.scoutbase.org.uk/ps/activities/homecontact.pdf
>
> Whilst I can see why some people may find it difficult to recruit suitable
> people to fulfil this current role, and that the use of technology should
> be reviewed, I'm not convinced by the suggestions put forward.
>
> It all seems a little wooly.
>
> Any other comments?
>

Sorry to join in a little on the late side. (Euphemistically) 'I've
had a few invitations to visit a few of my favourite (not!) summer
residences for short stays!'

I largely welcome this sort of thing.

For some years now I've felt that the HC system has been somewhat
lagging behind technology - principally ignoring the effect on
activities that mobile phones, etc, have made in recent times - and
the process and procedures have also somewhat slipped behind current
thinking on assessing risk and the use of control factors to mitigate
against increased risk. Furthermore, when you add in the fact that
most current HC processes have a large dollop of so-called 'local
rules' attached, you can see why many (probably 'most') people view
the current system as being largely unworkable at times.

Hence, it's good to see a review taking place and I welcome the
published proposals.

After reading through many of the posts on this issue, I would remind
some people that these are proposals not the fixed and final draft!

Some of my own thoughts.

We must be careful not to add additional processes to the system above
and beyond what is needed as a minimum. The scope of these proposals
is very wide ranging and I can see many opportunities for so-called
'local rules' to be inserted. I can see an opportunity here to reduce
the amount of paperwork on leaders without reducing safety and/or
increasing risk. However, it's all too easy to slip in local rules
here and that must not happen.

You're on a day-out in your local (home) area and a minor incident
occurs, e.g. a trip/fall. Do you initiate the HC process (even though
technically you don't need such a process in your Home Area)? I
somehow don't think so! The leader will contact the parents direct and
between them the incident will be sorted. Why the need to involve a
third person?

Even if you're on a day-out outside your Home Area, a minor incident
is likely to be handled not too differently to the one above.

There used to be this concern that in the case of an incident a leader
is going to be 'tied-up', busy, or too involved to be able to handle
things such as communications with home. May be true 10-20 years ago,
but not so nowadays when communication in many instances is simply at
one's finger-tips.

(Furthermore, I can recall back in my youth - ah memories! - in the
early 70s when a day trip to North Wales was a real DAY trip. And that
was only as far as Rhyl! Conwy/Llandudno had to be weekend trips and
Bangor/Anglesey were practically 'foreign holidays'! Nowadays someone
can drive along the whole of that coast in under 2h.)

We live in a much 'smaller' world these days and our processes need to
take account of that.

As for Commissioners (CC, DC, etc) getting involved in incidents, well
they do so nowadays don't they? If there's an incident where say a
party of scouts/explorers get lost in the hills I don't think that the
DC will somehow be left until last to get involved. And if the DC's
not around them I'm sure that every district today will have an
existing process that defines a nominee. When the DC and his/her team
get involved in managing a major incident I fail to see then any
significant role left for a parent acting as a HC; everything goes
through the scouting authorities.

My one main concern is having a HC system for regular local activities/
HQ meets. This is dangerous because imo it's an ideal opportunity for
the local rules merchants to screw everything up.

Who on earth doesn't these days have a 'list of (emergency) contacts'
with them when they run local activities/meets? I will contend that
the rules as currently written have this requirement implicitly
written into them (i.e. risk assessing scouting meets/activities). We
all do this in our own ways - some have numbers programmed into
phones, others have paper lists, some have record cards, some just
have a few jottings on the back of an envelope. There is no need to
rigorously define this process. Let the leader decide which is the
best way.

We do not want the 'you need a piece of paper (in triplicate) to step
out of your HQ' merchants buzzing around with their brand of madness.

Furthermore, on this point in particular, I fail to see the need to
have a rigorously defined HC system for many activities within one's
own Home Area. We need to base things on risk and on actual evidence.

So how many times do you have an 'incident' - such as an accident/
injury - requiring external assistance in your Home Area per year?
30+ ? 20+ ? 10+ ? I think if you look through most HQ incident books
you'll see far less than 10. And what generally happens when one of
these occurs? Leader rings parents. Parents turn up or meet leader at
certain place (e.g. A&E). Other leader/assistants sort out other kids.
Sorted. All you need is a simple process to support this. There's no
evidence to suggest much more is needed.

When might you need a more involved process for an incident in your
Home Area? When doing adventurous activities maybe. The risk is
higher. We should expect more bumps, bruises, falls, etc. And maybe
thrown in NA in this category.

We also need to simplify who can be a HC. The current rules make it
very difficult for many groups to find someone eligible to be a HC.
And when they do they're not certain that the HC will be capable of
doing the job if called upon!

We worry about the additional stress put on a leader handling an
incident if they get involved in the HC side of things. The thing is
that in many minor incidents they are involved and handle things more
than adequately in most cases. Only in serious incidents would I fear
for the stress put on a leader but in those cases, as evidence shows,
the CC, DC, nominee or Scout Association get involved and take over.

So IMO: We do need a revision/updating; We do need to think of simple
systems/processes; We need to make 'HC' for many Home Area activities
largely document-free; We need to consider effective simple systems
for activities outside the HA and for adventurous and NA activities
wherever they take place; We need to ensure the activity leader is
best able to judge what system is best for the activities they're
leading and for them to manage/run that system according to their RA;
We need to avoid needless paperwork; and, We need the best people
doing what they do and know best.

Enough! Off out to dedicate my body to science yet again!

GAGS

> You're on a day-out in your local (home) area and a minor incident
> occurs, e.g. a trip/fall. Do you initiate the HC process (even though
> technically you don't need such a process in your Home Area)? I
> somehow don't think so! The leader will contact the parents direct and
> between them the incident will be sorted. Why the need to involve a
> third person?
>
> Even if you're on a day-out outside your Home Area, a minor incident
> is likely to be handled not too differently to the one above.
>
> There used to be this concern that in the case of an incident a leader
> is going to be 'tied-up', busy, or too involved to be able to handle
> things such as communications with home. May be true 10-20 years ago,
> but not so nowadays when communication in many instances is simply at
> one's finger-tips.

I think one of the things that isn't covered in these proposals is the issue 
of over communicating or prioritizing the point of the communications 
depending on the course of events.

I used to, when I was not so experienced and naive I learned that I was 
phoning the Home Contact too much, i.e. when on camp at least once a day 
with a general report of the day regardless of what went of and found this 
unnecessary so decided to cut this out.

I have also seen communications happening too early whereby there's more 
priority things to sort out before phoning the HC or parents up, I find that 
what should happen is that the immediate problem is sorted 1st and then the 
necessary comms are made, and I don't mean to the extreme here of poor 
Johnny bleeding to death and im on the phone to the HC, do the 1st aid 1st 
if its only a small cut no need to worry anyone up and maybe tell the 
parents at home time if its anything trivial.

When running hikes where we have provided vehicle support I have also 
experienced Vehicle  Support phoning me every 5 mins asking me where I was 
because I may have been 15 mins over time and hence has really annoyed me, 
again we sorted that out and made the assumption no news is good news which, 
with regards to this new system should be a consideration.

On 24 Jul, 12:34, GAGS  wrote:

> and
> the process and procedures have also somewhat slipped behind current
> thinking on assessing risk and the use of control factors to mitigate
> against increased risk.

Apart from say an overdue party in the hills, the risk assessment has
more to do with mitigating inconvenience than any risk to life or
limb.