Chippewa29

I've noticed that my SPL is somewhat inconsistent with his preparation for troop meetings. Sometimes, he has everything well planned ahead of time (we have monthly PLC meetings) and other meetings, he has done nothing to prep for it or he calls some people to help with things an hour before the meeting. Obviously, those meetings don't go off well at all. This is his third term (non-consecutive) as SPL, so he definitely knows how to get things done. How, without hounding him constantly, do you get your SPL to make sure he is well prepared for each troop meeting? Are there any tools I can give him to help him with that weekly task?

First of all, in my troop we do troop elections every six months. If a Scout is going to turn 18 during the term, he is not eligible for one of the electable positions. If a Scout needs the "leadership" time for a couple of months before he gets his Eagle, I would appoint him as an instructor so he could show leadership but didn't really have week-to-week duties. This Scout is probably scrambling to finish his Eagle and filling out college applications and trying to enjoy his senior year of high school. More importantly, I would be thrilled if we had an Eagle Scout who wanted to run for SPL. He isn't worried about getting his Eagle and can devote more time to actually developing his leadership ability- the most important requirement for Eagle Palms. Just because a Scout earns his Eagle doesn't mean he is ready to stop growing and learning and getting more out of the program. At this point, the Scout is just coming into his own as a leader and has so much to contribute to the troop. Pushing him into "retirement" once he gets his Eagle is like these companies that force good executives to retire in their early 50's just as they are hitting to peak of their careers.

As someone born in 1972 (the year Title IX was enacted), I've always felt it was weird for women not to have the same opportunities as men. Of course, while growing up, I learned what were traditionally male and female roles in our society. Something I always noticed was that any time I encountered a woman that was in a traditionally male role, she tended to be more competent than a majority of the men I met in a similar position. As part of this, when I started seeing women in SM and ASM positions in the early 90's, they tended to be some of the most competent and dedicated Scouters I had ever met. There are certain traits needed to be a successful Scout leader. These include a desire to spend time outdoors (usually associated with men), a desire to help young boys grow into strong, upstanding young men (both men and women), and a willingness to let go and let the Scouts fail if that will lead to a better learning experience (more associated with men). The beef most males Scouters have with women being involved in Scouting in a contact role is they feel the moms are too emotional and won't let the kids grow up. I've seen this go both ways where the mom is ready to push the kid out the door so he can get more independent. However, dad goes on the campout and watches over junior the entire weekend, setting up his tent, washing his dishes, asking him every 15 minutes if he's warm enough, etc. Something I always tell parents before they go on a campout is that once they get there, they are not a parent, but a Scout leader. If they are going to tell their own son to put on his hat, then they need to be willing to say that to all the Scouts. My attitude toward female leaders is the same as toward male leaders: they have to be willing to act as a Scout leader (not a parent) if they are going to camp with the Scouts.

Over the past several years, my troop has only gotten 3-6 Scouts crossing over each year. We've always had our new Scouts in the same patrol with each other. I'm a believer in bigger patrols (8-10 vs. 5-7), so having a group of four new Scouts in their own patrol doesn't seem to lend itself to being very efficient. If you have enough new Scouts (at least 7 or 8 you know will stick around) and a good Troop Guide and an ASM that will with that patrol, then having a purely NSP makes sense.

Congrats on becoming captain of your own ship. My first suggestion to you is to develop a plan with the Scouts and other adults about where you want to troop to go in the next few years. My second suggestion is to read the book "The 17 Irrefuteable Laws of Leadership" by John Maxwell. I've read 60-70 leadership books over the years, and I feel that if you are going to read just one, this is it. It will give you some incredible lessons on things to do and not to do as a leader.

Sounds like your pack is in great shape right now. Great vision on your part to realize the turnover coming in the next year and a half. I saw two packs back in the late 90's in a similar situation. The first one had about 50-60 kids and was well staffed by adults. However, the CM, both ACM, committee chair, committee treasurer, committee secretary, activities chair, and the Webelos II DL and ADL all had sons in Webelos II. The year after this group of adults left, the pack had about 20 kids and folded the year after. The other pack in our area had a similar number of kids and the main positions were filled with the parents of Webelos. The CM recognized this a year and a half before his son crossed over. Although they didn't really need them at the time, they recruited parents of Tigers, Wolves, and Bears to be the Vice Chair of the Pack Committee, assistant treasurer, assistant secretary, and vice chair of activities. Basically, they took the existing jobs and split up the work between two people. No one had a ton of stuff to do, and people were getting trained for the future. Also, they got one of the Wold DL to agree to take over as Cubmaster the following year. To compensate for his den, they had three ADL (the den had 9-10 kids). The three ADL rotated between the three monthly den meetings (all came to the monthly pack meeting). They also recruited a second ACM so they would have plenty of backups when the current leadership left. That pack has continued to prosper ever since that time and they are still great about recruiting multiple people for the same positions and splitting up the work. My best suggestion, if you haven't thought of this already, is to find small jobs for parents to do. Most are reluctant to be in charge of anything, but a lot of them wouldn't mind being an assistant and helping out a couple of times a month. Once they get into it, some will want to stay at that level. Others will really enjoy it and want to get more involved. Your cream will rise up to the top.

I know your dilemma to a certain extent. I am currently SM of my troop, which we are currently rebuilding. In the past couple of years, I have been approached to be a unit commissioner, an associate OA advisor, and an adult advisor for the NYLT staff. I have turned them all down. Although those are all things I would enjoy, my limited time has to be devoted to building up my troop. Short term, it would probably be a lot of fun, helpful to those groups, and a little bit ego-gratifying, to take on an additional position. However, in the best long-term interest of my troop, I need to focus on them. My suggestion for the lady that started this thread would be to focus on building the pack she is with. She mentioned that the pack didn't have enough quality leaders. As the WDL, help develop the pack for the future by recruiting parents (especially in the younger dens or Webelos parents with another son coming up) to take on leadership roles. Most parents don't get involved because they see all the time and energy you put into it and feel they can't (or simply won't) do the same thing. However, if you get enough parents involved (make them the assistant of whatever at first) and get them trained, you will do more for the pack than you would by serving in those other positions. Once the pack is strong enough to where they don't need you anymore (which should be the goal of every great leader), then move onto another position where you can help other units.

We often talk about the great experiences we have at summer camp or on high adventure trips. I'd like to hear from my fellow Scouters about their best experiences on the bread and butter of the Scouting program, the weekend campouts. Probably the best weekend campout I've been on was last April. We hosted two other troops and conducted a version of the Siege of Mafeking campout we'd seen on the internet. A few nights ago, I was at a district event, and the leaders of both of the other troops that were with us came up to me and commented on how much their Scouts still talk about that campout. We did a lot of stuff at night sneaking through the woods. The Scouts got a big adrenaline rush trying to retake Mafeking and all the challenges it presented. However, something we added just as an add-on got the best review. On Saturday morning, we planned a training session for the new Scouts on Totin Chit and fire building. Not sure what to do with the older Scouts, we decided to send them on a hike. Two things made it interesting. First of all, we called it a reconnisance mission. I planted map (saying it was the key to success in our mission that night) a couple of miles from camp. Then, to make it really interesting, we told the Scouts that they had to avoid the Boer patrols along the woods and follow certain directions. Of course, our directions took them through a mile long marsh and up and down over numerous hills. They had a riot. Another great part of the camp was something one of my patrols came up with. The Scouts all had staves with them. Five members of a patrol ad libbed a game they called stick switch. They all stood about a staves length apart. One the count of three, they all left their staves standing and ran clockwise to the next stave before the stave fell to the ground. If none of the staves fell, then everyone took one step backward (making a bigger circle) and did it again. We turned it into a contest and one patrol of six actually ended up taking six steps backward successfully before failing on the seventh. The Scouts loved it. Our adventure was complete about half past midnight on Saturday. The Scouts were exhausted the next day when they went home. I had numerous parents tell me at the next troop meeting that their sons loved the event and slept all day Sunday (they were very thankful for the peace and quiet).

My troop had our quarterly COH last Monday. It went ok, but I noticed that our SPL/ASPL (who act as the MC for the COH) could have done things much better. I'm not talking about being able to handle the Oscars as well as Billy Crystal, but I noticed several things they should have probably done to make things run smoother. I realized afterward that I had never really taught any of the Scouts how to be an effective MC. I further realized that I don't really know how to train them for that. Does anyone have any ideas or preferrably links I could go to in order to find a list of things an MC needs to make sure of for running a successful COH?

In our district, they have often had two different categories set up for different patrols: ones with Scouts age 11-13 and ones with Scout 14-17. If a troop follows BSA guidelines when setting up patrols, this works out really well. I have no problem with what OGE said. If I had a group of Scouts that were real go-getters and wanted to be a regular patrol, I would seriously see about having that happen. As long as they are a regular patrol, more power to them. The only time I think it would be ok to have Scouts from different patrols is if there weren't enough from each patrol to compete. At a campout my troop hosted (two other troops joined us) last spring, one of the troops only came with seven Scouts (out of 20 in the troop). There was a ton of team building that needed at least 4-5 members, so they combined the Scouts together in one patrol. They just happened to be seven of the best Scouts from that troop (made sense they were the ones to show up) and obviously overmatched the other patrols in a couple of competitions. I had no problem with that.

When Scouting was started almost 100 years ago, there were very few, if any, sports programs for kids. Also, people were migrating from farms (where there was lots of exercise) to the cities (little or no exercise). Scouting gave young boys the chance to get out in the country and get some exercise (hiking, swimming, etc.) and fresh air. Physical fitness was one of the aims of Scouting and it was one of the few programs to offer that for boys. As sports programs grew, the physical fitness component of Scouting wasn't as necessary as before. Troops used to challenge each other in baseball, football, track, etc. There were many fitness competitions held on the troop and district levels. I still believe it is a huge component of my troops program. The Scouts in my troop love to be active and we do a lot of hiking, biking, swimming, and games that involve running around at troop meetings. An idea that we've been floating around is the idea of holding a district wide fitness championships. Basically, a day event to serve two purposes. First, provide a venue to conduct Tenderfoot fitness testing in the spring. Second, the troops can compete in several fitness events for points, leading to a championship for the winning troop. I'd even like to see an adult division. This idea is still very much in the early discussion stages. However, I think that is a way to keep Scouts interested in physical fitness and develop some troop spirit.

Fuzzy- Your idea is a very good one. In fact, about a dozen years ago, there were not any really strong troops in our part of the district (a lot of troops in the 8-20 Scouts range). A former district chair convinced his church (with about 3000 families as members) to sponsor a troop and got the Men's club there to provide a couple of thousand dollars for equipment. He then went out and recruited adults to join the troop (I was one that he contacted). Within a couple of months, he had seven trained ASM and a pretty well stocked troop committee. This was before they had any Scouts. Then, he started recruiting within the church and from local Cub packs (many of them hadn't been recruited in the previous few years). They had over sixty Scouts in the next three years and have been a powerhouse ever since. That is a perfect example of what you are talking about. If we could do that more often, I'm all for it. However, at least in my area, when they are starting a new unit, it is usually a one man (or one woman) show. The troops initial funds for their first awards and some camping stuff (everyone brings their own tents) comes out of the unit leaders pocket. That one leader gets frustrated after a year or so, and ends up leaving the unit high and dry. Yes, there are times when these units can eventually grow and prosper, but I think if the district encouraged someone that wanted to start a new unit to instead join a struggling unit in the same area, they could combine resources and have one healthy unit with at least as many Scouts as two possibly struggling units combined. Again, I really do like your idea of taking trained adults from a strong unit and forming a new unit. That plan would make much more sense than just handing out a charter to someone with five Scouts and very few resources at their disposal.

Fuzzy- You may be right. I think we will hit the fifty Scouts. My troop is on the upswing and with a refocused effort on recruiting, we should be able to start getting more Scouts coming in. However, in order to split the troop, there has to be a group of people willing to move over to that new troop and one or two of our feeder packs (assuming we have several by that time). Its definitely not going to be an easy process if and when it happens. I think if we do it successfully, however, it will be a good model for other units to follow.

I can definitely see pushing to get a new unit going if an area in underserved. I have a friend who started a troop at his church in an inner city neighborhood a few years ago. The closest troop was about two miles away and the area was very underserved (there were two elementary schools and middle school less than a mile from the church). His district wanted a troop for that neighborhood, as most of the kids in the area would have had to either walk or take a bus the two miles or so to the other troop. It made sense to start a new troop since there was a definite need in the area. They grew to about 30 Scouts in six months, all of whom lived less than a mile from the church. If they hadn't started that unit, very few, if any of those Scouts would joined another troop. In my suburban area however, if there is another troop only two miles away, then that is actually very close, as everyone drives to everything anyway. For the boys in our area, there are more than enough close opportunities for Scouting. While we are getting healthier, in the late 90's, our area only had one strong troop and the rest of us were struggling. At that time, they decided to form new units instead of helping the existing ones. While they managed to get a couple of new troops going, a couple of old troops folded. The same thing happened with Cub Packs. In reality, there are actually less units in our area than there were ten years ago. In getting information from the District for the upcoming recruiting season, I have found out that four of the Cub packs close to my troop are struggling right now to get enough Cubs and adults to put on quality programs. Two of them are only two miles away from each other (each are based at an elementary school) and overlap from the neighborhoods they draw from. Wouldn't it make sense to just merge those two units together and combine the resources until they get strong enough to split again? Couldn't one pack that has enough adults to fill the key positions (neither can seem to do so right now) better serve the youth and have greater retention than the two smaller packs? If things get to the point where the pack is really big and they have lots of adult help, then split the packs back up and keep growing from there. I've stated for a long time that I want my troop to get to forty Scouts and once we get close to fifty, I'd like to split the troop in two. At that point, we should have more than enough quality people trained so we can have two sustainable units. That seems like a much more reasonable plan than just adding new units while current ones in the same area are suffering.

I had heard something about performance based upon the number of units in the district. However, aren't we supposed to be serving the youth? Wouldn't it make more sense to guage performance by the number of youth rather than the number of units? A better strategy for getting more units would be to encourage units to split when they reach a certain number of Scouts. That way, they could make sure the new units had the resources necessary to succeed rather than relying on maybe finding someone quality to build up a unit.

Something occured to me after reading all the stuff about membership sliding. In our area several years back (late 90's, early 2000's), there was a big emphasis in our council about adding new units. Membership in our district was a concern at the time, and many units were struggling (my troop being one of them). I heard of a new troop starting up less than ten minutes from us. I contacted the SM and asked him if instead of starting a brand new unit, maybe see about merging with us instead. We talked about it a bit, but when the other troop's SM approached council about it, they encouraged him instead to stick with starting his own unit. Around this same time period, there were a few other troops started in the same areas that already had troops struggling. About 3-4 years ago, they started two packs within a year that were about two miles apart from each other (there are multiple packs in the area and neither of them were more than a few miles from the nearest pack). Since then, both of those packs have really struggled with getting their numbers up and some of the other packs in the area are having the same issue. The adults in those packs are stretched to the limit because they are having a hard time finding adults willing to learn the ropes and help out. I'm hearing the same issues from the CM I talk to. It seems that in the process of trying to get the number of units up, the council really spread out the available quality adults. It seems as though if some of these units merged and combined some of their resources, overall they would have much stronger programs and be able to serve more Scouts in a better way. I'm not talking about creating units of 100+ kids, but wouldn't a single troop of 20 Scouts work better than two troops of ten Scouts each?

At Roundtable last month and this month, we had discussions about losing Scouts, etc. However, instead of a bunch of old guys (and a few gals) griping about it, we were presented with a solution. Our District has a couple of young DE's (both in their mid-20's) that are very serious about their jobs and want the district to prosper. At Roundtable last month, they presented a novel idea (at least for our area) of Troops having an open house and recruiting the local sixth graders from the schools. They laid out a full scale plan of how to do it. I was very impressed. This month, they talked about recruiting Webelos. In the past, they just handed out a list of the CM in the district and left it at that. Then, in the spring, the district Webelos-to-Scout transition chair would call us to see how we did. This year, they took a different tact. They gave us the names, addresses, and phone numbers of the CM, Webelos leaders, and the Webelos themselves from the four packs closest to where our troop meets. I was very impressed by this. Now, instead of calling the Cubmaster 3-4 times before I finally catch him and trying to get the numbers of the Webelo leaders, I can call the Webelos leaders direct. The troops left Roundtable last night much more pumped up about getting out and recruiting this year. We had about 40% of the packs in our district who were not even contacted last year about joining a Boy Scout troop. No moping around in our district. We're actually stirring up the pot and trying some new things.

If you have a vision of where you would like the troop to go, I have two suggestions. First of all write it down. This will help you make sure you have a clear idea of where you want the troop to be in a few years. I've had a vision in my head for years, but now that I'm writing it down, it is becoming much more clear and forcing me to really evaluate my vision. Second thing you need to do is communicate your vision. If you and the troop committee have a disagreement on the direction of the troop, maybe it is because they have a different vision for the troop than you do. Better yet, work on that vision with the committee. If they can see that your goals are the same as theirs, they may be more willing to line up behind your methods.

Oh, to have those problems. I dream of the day... In my district, we have a couple of what I would call "supertroops" where one has over 80 Scouts and the other has close to 110. They each get 30 to 40 Webelos crossing over and lose 25 to 40 Scouts a year. One of the adults in the larger troop commented to me earlier this year his concern with losing what he calls "a troop full of boys each year". I remember a story in Scouting magazine years ago that talked about an Air Force Recruiter that was a Cubmaster. He took over a pack of less than twenty kids and within a few months, had something like 80 to 100 Cubs. They split the pack in two and kept growing. In a couple of years, they had four packs on their base (the original one was the only one when they started) with several dozen Cubs each. The extra structure needed to support a huge troop could very easily be used to split into another troop. Instead of of 80-100 Scouts in a troop, could you still conduct as good of a program with two troops of 40-50 Scouts? Sure. I also believe you would lose less kids because it would be easier to build relationships with all those Scouts. Getting back off this tangent, I feel that you need to have the leadership structure to support the growth. Years ago when I was a Scout, my troop had about a dozen Scouts (all age 13 or younger). We operated very well with two patrols and the active adult leadership (meaning those that went on campouts) was our SM and an ASM. That spring, we had twelve Webelos cross over to the troop. We doubled in size and added two new patrols. However, within a couple of months, we were back down to 15-16 Scouts and three patrols. It wasn't that we didn't have a good program (we had a pretty solid one, camping 9-10 times a year), it was that we didn't have the leadership structure needed to support that many Scouts. Currently, my troop has been stuck at about 20 Scouts for the past two years. We have realized that our leadership structure wasn't meant to support more Scouts than that. We are now implementing changes to our leadership structure so we can grow again. If we suddenly had 15-20 Scouts cross over to the troop and didn't change our structure, we'd probably lose 75% of those new Scouts. However, with adjustments to the leadership structure, we will probably be able to handle that many new Scouts. Moral of the story: make sure you have the structure necessary before adding on all those new Scouts.

When you add touches like that to Scouting events, it really raises the level of quality. Many of the Scouts in my troop are really into Classic Rock (Beatles, Led Zepplin, etc.) and have use some of their songs for campfires or even changed lyrics to more of a Scout theme. The methods of Scouting are frameworks around which we build our programs. There is nothing wrong with adding modern touches to the program, as long as it doesn't take away from the aims and methods. For many "older" programs, mixing the modern and traditional is a delicate balance. Many kids want things modern, but how many sports teams do you hear about spouting tradition and getting the kids to buy into their history. Scouting has an incredible history and many wonderful traditions. Those traditions don't need to be scrapped to make the program modern and more relevant to the youth of today. However, if we rely only on tradition ("Son, you need to join Scouts because I was a Scout and my dad was a Scout") then we will keep losing numbers.

Very good thread. Some excellent points being made. I do have a couple of comments I would like to add. First, Eagledad hit it right on the head when he said that by the end of five years, boys were tired of Cub Scouts, especially if the emphasis is still on arts and crafts and museum trips (as my Cub experience was). There were no Tiger Cubs when I was that age. I actually didn't join the Cub Scouts until I was almost nine years old. I had good den leaders and we had fun doing what I would call "litle kid stuff". My favorite memory as a Cub was going hiking in the woods near where I lived with my den. I thought that was the coolest thing. If my Webelos experience had been the same as my Cub experience, I probably wouldn't have gone onto Boy Scouts. However, my Webelos leader was an Eagle that basically ran our den as pre-Boy Scouts. We went hiking and spent a lot of meetings outside. He taught how to build fires and tie knots and lots of other outdoor skills. The only crafts we did that year was the pinewood derby. I was so pumped up to cross over, I crossed in about two weeks before I turned 11 (even though the rest of my den would cross over in May, as was standard at the time). I've worn the tan and olive drab proudly for the past 23 years now. The impression I've gotten from a lot of parents whose kids drop either right before or right after the crossover is that they feel their son has already "been there, done that" with Scouting. They don't understand that the Boy Scouting program has the same aims, but different methods. Another thing that I can say is one reason kids pick sports over Scouts is because of the level of committment they take. If you have two things you enjoy, but one is 3-4 days a week and the other is one day a week, which are you going to choose? Leaving the activity that is 3-4 days each week would leave a pretty big whole in their lives. Besides, they are bonding with those people 6-8 hours a week versus 1 1/2-2 hours a week at Scouts. Yes, Scouts do a lot of bonding on campouts, but when these kids go to the all day or all weekend sports tournaments, they do a lot of bonding there as well. One of the guys I was in Scouts with early on was a fast riser like me. He was Life at 13 and on his way to Eagle. One day, just as we started 8th grade, he came to a troop meeting and told the SM he was quitting. When asked why, he said that Scouts took up enough time so that it was a burden, but not enough time to really make it a commitment. It took me years to understand what he meant by that.

I liked the article. Especially how you try to get the Scout thinking about his future and making some committments to himself by setting a goal for the next rank. The only thing I would like to add is possibly asking the Scouting how he sees himself within the troop, both now and in the future. I've only got twenty more years to catch up with you.

Transitioning from one SM to another is always a challenge for a troop. If the transition involves two SM with different ways of doing things, then the challenge in increased. I have a couple of suggestions on how to make this transition easier. This from my own experience in taking over a troop from a SM that had an iron grip on things and while he did some things very well, there are some things he did that definitely didn't go along with the Methods of the BSA. 1. Decide and write down on paper what changes you would like to make as well as your vision of what you'd like to see the troop become. 2. If it is already know in the troop that you will become the next SM, start lining up support for your ideas. You don't have to present it as "this guy was wrong, we're going to do it better now". Present yourself as being different from the previous SM (not necessarily better) and let people know that things will be different. You aren't that SM and if you try to be just like him, you will fail (just as he would fail if he tried to be you). Initially, have parking lot or phone meetings with other adults you feel are influential people in your troop. If this SM truly isn't doing things by the Patrol Method, then you should have other adults in the troop that recognize this. Speak to them about the changes you'd like to make. Show them the vision of what you'd like the troop to become. If you speak of your vision and line up their support, then the troop won't be in for a huge surprise and a part of the troop will already behind you, making it easier to implement the changes. 3. Is the current SM plan on sticking around at all once he "retires"? If he does, the you need to sit down with him and have a serious discussion. Let him know that you will be making some changes. He needs to know that you've always edified him and went along with his decisions. When you are the SM and are doing the work, he needs to respect your decisions even if they aren't what he would do. He needs to respect your judgement and not second guess you behind your back. I had that issue when I became SM. At troop meetings, while I'd be working with the Scouts, he would be sitting with the other adults telling them how things should be done (basically, he didn't want to do the work anymore, but he still wanted to make the decisions on what happened in the troop). After about two and a half years of him second guessing my decisions and having parents always question what I was doing (almost always after he would stop by one of the troop meetings), I finally got him to leave the troop completely. He couldn't stand to have someone else making decisions for the troop (including the Scouts and especially someone over 20 years younger than him). While he was there, he was a handicap for the troop. If the previous SM is planning on sticking around after his retirement, then he should make himself scarce for at least several months so you can effectively assume command of the troop. If he is around, as noted in my above example, it will muddy the chain of command and make it much harder to implement your changes (he doesn't sound like he would support them). After several months, once people clearly recognize you as SM, then he can slowly become more active in the troop again with usurping your authority. Good luck on your transition. I hope it goes much more smoothly than mine did.

Eammon- I agree that trying to put together an ideal troop is a tall order. However, I think that is something we (as in my troop) need to strive for. The BSA's Aims and Methods provide a wonderful framework from which to draw our values. However, within that framework, there are many different ways to build up a unit. For example, we have a troop in our distict with about 100-110 Scouts. Everywhere they go, they move like an army and develop a temporary city. Another troop in our district has about fifteen Scouts (they have said they don't ever want to go over 20) and follows LNT principles as well as any unit I've ever seen. Both are very good troops with long histories and good reputations. Both are very good at following the Aims and Methods. However, with the exception of the Aims and Methods, they are very different troops. I also know that both of those troops are the way they are by design. When the big troop was founded back in the early 70's, they wanted to be a huge troop like they are today. Their SM was a Scout in the troop in the early years and remembers when they had "only" 35-40 members and the leaders talking about how the troop was going to be the biggest and best troop around. Another large troop in our district was founded back in 1993. A former district chairman formed the trooped and had seven trained ASM before they had a single Scout. They laid out a plan and the troop had over 60 Scouts within three years. Today, they have about 80 Scouts and are very well respected in our area. The smaller troop, on the other hand, has been around since the 1950's. Obviously, they didn't start off following LNT principles. Their size floated up and down over the years (they actually had 30+ Scouts in the late 80's). In the early 90's, they had about 25-30 Scouts but were really floundering as a troop (little advancement, low attendance at events, discipline issues, etc.) At that time, their current SM took over and had a plan. They felt they could better serve the Scouts of their troop with a smaller unit and more individual attention. Over the next few years, they purposely let their unit shrink a little bit and changed the way they did things (including adopting LNT principles). Amazingly, while their membership dropped, their attendance at meetings and campouts increased, advancement increased, and the number of problems they had decreased. They met their goal of better serving the youth because they developed a workable plan and created what was an ideal troop for them. I'd like to see my troop formulate a plan that will create the ideal troop for us. I think our progress as a troop has stalled because we don't have plan of what we really want to do. By the way, we are a Quality Unit every year, we follow the patrol method, over 50% of the registered adults are trained, we camp twelve months a year, and have a yearly planning conference led by the Scouts to put together these events. I believe that in order for us to progress as a unit, we need that roadmap that goes beyond the Aims and Methods. If anyone has suggestions on what areas we need to cover, I'd be more than happy to hear them. Or, better yet, if your troop has some kind of written plan, I'd love to read it and get ideas.

Currently, I am working on a written plan (along with others in the troop) for the vision of what we would like the troop look like ideally. Are there other troops who have written similar types of plans? I'm not talking anything broad like a mission statement or as nitpicky as a set of rules and regulations, but a written picture of what you would like the troop to become. If any one has ideas about what areas should be covered, please post them here. If anyone has a copy of one their troop has developed, please send me a private message and I'll be happy to provide my email so you can mail a copy. I've had a picture of where I've wanted the troop to go for years, but getting it written down has proven to be difficult. Thank you in advance for any help you may be able to provide.