perceptions and misperceptions about smaller troops

[Lisabob 13]

Ron asks for selling points for smaller troops. We might as well also consider how to counter perceived weaknesses of smaller troops (which often discourage people from even looking at them, in my experience).

 

Selling points:

1. Smaller troop = more personal attention for each scout. Boys who get "lost" in a large troop are more likely to drop out of scouts all together. This is especially true of boys who maybe aren't as socially or emotionally mature when they first join boy scouting. I've seen boys who loved Cub Scouts suddenly flounder in Boy Scouts in a larger troop for exactly this reason and in most cases, we lose these boys forever.

 

2. Smaller troop = more flexibility. Organizing events for 30-90 scouts (plus parents/leaders) is a huge undertaking and limits the types of activities the group can engage in, as well as where they can go due to sheer size.

 

3. Smaller troop CAN = more boy-led. It is easier to lead a small group than a large group. Logistical problems are fewer. Temptations for adults to step in may therefore be fewer as well. This is not a given, but it could be easier than in a large troop.

 

Not to mention, it is easier for every boy's voice to be heard when there are only 8-15 voices in total, versus 30-90 voices.

 

Now on to common concerns about joining a smaller troop:

 

1. Smaller troop = more parental commitment than larger troop.

I think this may be one of the bigger myths out there. In our larger troop, I've noticed that parents who don't get involved tend to see their boy drop out fairly quickly. So yes, that's less commitment if you consider quitting as the lowest possible level of commitment! Beyond that, there's always work to be done in any size troop and it will find you. In some ways I think being an involved parent in a smaller troop could be less work - fewer personalities to juggle, fewer people to coordinate with, etc..

 

2. Smaller troop = less organized

As a somewhat burned out cub leader who effectively organized just about everything in the pack for a couple of years, I remember thinking this. I remember being thrilled that the larger troop my son wanted to join seemed so well organized. Spoiler alert: it isn't that well organized! Just because there may be a lot of people in formal leadership positions doesn't necessarily translate into organization and it can actually be more frustrating to try and help such a large group become better organized - more inertia if you will. Of course some small troops are also not well organized. On the other hand though, sometimes they can afford to be a bit looser because there isn't as much to keep track of!

 

4. Smaller troop = weak leaders

My experience tends to suggest the opposite. In a large group, a weak or mediocre leader can be propped up indefinitely by his or her supporting cast. Not so in a small troop.

 

5. Bigger troop = more "glitzy" program, smaller troop = more mundane program.

Maybe. OTOH, it might be easier for a small troop to pull off a really ambitious event or trip due to size. And besides, glitz isn't what everybody is looking for.

 

 

As for recruiting new scouts, smaller troops really have to work hard at this. In my experience, larger troops can sit back and do virtually nothing and still, new scouts will join. As gwd suggests elsewhere, it is almost unfair sometimes! But for a small troop just beginning to work on recruiting in a serious way like what Ron suggested in the other thread, I'd advocate taking a long term view (3-5 years). Start working now with wolf and bear den leaders to build that relationship. Focusing on the current Webelos II boys is probably going to be a case of "too little, too late" at this point, though it can't hurt to put the word out about your troop to them as well.

 

 

[Guest OldGreyEagle]

Please respond to identical thread