I’ve already explained why I don’t see the need for a new program in my first two posts. Check them out here: JB is Local and Why I don’t agree with Pathways Conceptually. In this post I will examine the specifics of the proposed program and some arguments I’ve heard on the subject already.

Section 7. Pathways will integrate youth into the governance structures of CISV throughout the organization. Arguments can be made for and against this. Some say this is good because in the past they’ve been blocked from taking on roles in their chapters. Some say this is bad because after finally making it into these positions organically, they will lose respect. In the US, I see youth taking on roles that they feel prepared for in the organization. I see adults encouraging youth participation in management and governance too. It also seems to be that way in Canada and Sweden.

Section 7.1. Requiring Chapters and NAs to come up with detailed role profiles for every opportunity seems like too much work for volunteers. As someone who has worked on the local level in 2 chapters, I’ve never seen a formal role profile for a position.

Section 7.2. How can I argue with this? This is what JB offers right now.

“In Pathways, participants work towards this set of learning goals. All opportunities will contribute to the work and development of CISV and will:

• Allow you to explore and develop your interests
• Provide you with facilitation, leadership and decision-making experience
• Offer you an insight into organizational development
• Prepare you to apply CISV’s approach to active global citizenship”

Section 7.5. “Regardless of their Pathways involvement, CISV will continue to offer a variety of ways for youth to meet.” Who is going to organize these meetings? What will the agenda be? Most of the time the youth organize meetings with help from adults and the youth decide what they will do (run activities, have a board meeting, volunteer in the community, etc.).

Section 7.6. “We feel future Regional Training Forums should provide creative ‘think tank’ spaces for all CISVers to meet and share ideas.” Cool. So this would kind of take the place of regional JB workshops such as AJBM, APJBM, and EJBM. That’s a cool idea. I like how Conferences and Events is included here. Shouldn’t Educational Programs be part of the conversation too (assuming Pathways is a program not its own committee)? At every RTF, there is a youth side for creative thinking. In the Americas, this currently only happens at 1 RTF per year (I’m not sure how the other regions are organized).

Section 8. Thank you for re-introducing an age range and thoroughly backing it up with outside sources! It was quite surprising when JB had an issue about that a few years ago.

Section 9. I start to get a little worried in this section. As an “adult” in my chapter, I don’t even love going to our board meetings. I can’t imagine having teenagers sitting at the table. This was an issue when discussing this aspect on Facebook. Sarah said it best, “I like the idea of younger CISVers taking an active role in governing CISV, but the fact is that you are more confident and prepared to do so if you have a safe space to do that in JB first. Even if that is a system within a system, it is so different to be 14 or 17 and on a big board with adults and 14 or 17 on a small local JB board with your peers.”

Alex was concerned about room for failure, “Practically speaking, I think getting 16 year olds to attend board meetings will be a hard sell, but more importantly, I think we’ll lose the educational content on the local level this way. This is definitely a US-centric point of view, but the less independence our youth have, the fewer opportunities they have to fail. And you know what? Failure is a WONDERFUL opportunity that CISV provides. Growth, persistence, learning how to improve… All those things come from failures. I was so proud of what I accomplished in JB while I was in it, but looking back, I learned so much more from the activities no one attended and the concepts that flopped than I did from any restructuring that was successful the first time around.” This concept is often referenced with the expression, “JB is a playground.”

When did JB, as it stands now, stop working toward the goal “to educate and inspire action for a more just and peaceful world”? Everyone in CISV is working toward that goal. The report presents it like there was a shift that they are correcting with Pathways.

Section 11. This says that it is a comparison between JB and Pathways but I only see one side. Am I missing something? I like the ideas in part 7 and 8. I also feel like these could be tasks for the current JB to deal with. If you take out the IJB team, you might have a better chance at avoiding duplication of work (see part 1).

7. Pathways is a framework that fits into the overall organization of CISV, avoiding parallel structures and a duplication of work and effort.
8. It aims to contribute to the organization as a whole, strengthening CISV and achieving our purpose in a unified way.

Appendix 1, pg. 14. I suppose the Pathways coordinators are adults taking the positions that used to be held by JBers (LJRs, NJRs, regional teams, and IJRs)? Those are hard positions for anyone, why can’t they be held by Pathways participants?

In the interest of writing posts that are short enough to read, this is part 2 out of 3. See part 1 here. See part 3 here.

It’s broke, but don’t fix it.

Instead of fixing something that we’ve had in the organization since the 1970s, we’re going to dismantle it and start again. When a project gets a bit unwieldy, you rein it in. Redefine it and move forward. Most people will buy in and if they don’t, they don’t. Even though its CISV, not everyone needs to agree.

Real solutions to make JB less ambiguous: There should be specific things that all JBs have in common (e.g. a local board, monthly board meetings, monthly educational activities, working with the local chapter to help support sending and hosting programs, communication with national or regional team member). Specify an age range. If we look to other non-profits with youth sides of local chapters, we will see best practices for requirements.

It’s a lot of the same but different.

Alex said, “I just think this is going to be another example of changing structure instead of solving problems.”

The Name “Pathways”

The name would only make sense to CISVers (much like Step Up). Here’s what I think about that. We already have a name, “Junior Branch,” that makes sense to people outside the organization and one that our members have used for over 40 years.

The Junior Branch Review Team (JBRT) + Data

The JBRT’s perspective is very much one of individual experiences in CISV with long *recent* histories of lots of international involvement. Some are active in their NAs too and maybe some on a local level. I know that not many people wanted to help on this task force but this lack of diversity cannot be overlooked. Thank you JBRT for taking so much time to put this together. It is really nice to see a well thought out proposal even if I disagree with it.

Additionally, the data collected, which supposedly helped JBRT make recommendations, is weak. They tried to have JBs fill out a survey but got incredibly low results. They took information from the Governing Board’s recent survey but again, there was a low response rate. This isn’t JBRT’s fault but more a reflection on our organization’s lack of desire to take surveys (perhaps due to not enough volunteer time, email overload, language barriers, or getting the survey to the right people). JBRT conducted workshops at RTFs too. That’s a great idea. I personally don’t believe that most NJRs represent local JBers super well (their national JB, yes, but local JBs not so much). Some NJRs are good at being in touch with local needs but, my belief is that the majority of NJRs care more about national needs. Having these people participate in regional workshops is good, but again, not local. Local is where chapter members (including JBers) make JB happen.

Time is Not a Free Resource

I can imagine all the (volunteer) time and energy it will take to implement this new program. Also, it will cost chapters money to update all of their marketing/recruitment materials. Is it really worth it? I think no. Maybe we just introduce Pathways as a new segment of how JB needs to work in the future.