Active in Scouting by Participating in OUTINGS

[qwazse 4342]

I think its wrong-headed to use the advancement method to manipulate boys into participating.

You're just as likely to get a bunch of boys who abandon advancement.

 

We abandoned our participation percentages years ago, and got just as much activity from our older boys. (The ones also in a crew seemed to participate in troop activities even more than the Troop-only lot.)

 

It's a fair question for boys to try to nail down who is "one of us", but sooner or later they will hit a wall. Like a scout who slacked off attendance after getting Life and three years later is in the paper thanking "his troop (your numbers inserted her)" for the skills needed to rescue somebody from a burning building/ or perform grandly in the school play/ or endure the freezing cold playoff game to win the final. All of a sudden his patrol mates are posting the clipping on their brag wall and there's no amount of waiving some unit policy document that will get them to take it down.

[Krampus 696]

@@qwazse oddly we went the other route by requiring percentages. Here's what we achieved:

 

- Increased participation by all grades of scouts

- Participation increases from 9-12 grades from >30% to near 70%

- Increased size of troop from 60 to 80 scouts

- Increased retention to 97% from 82%

- Decreased scouts labeled as "inactive" to less than 5% from 25%

 

It can work if done right. We've kept these numbers for nearly 7 years and counting. Change was hard but those who want to be part of the program are willing to invest their time...not just pay dues and collect awards.

[CNYScouter 46]

@@qwazse oddly we went the other route by requiring percentages. Here's what we achieved:

 

- Increased participation by all grades of scouts

- Participation increases from 9-12 grades from >30% to near 70%

- Increased size of troop from 60 to 80 scouts

- Increased retention to 97% from 82%

- Decreased scouts labeled as "inactive" to less than 5% from 25%

 

It can work if done right. We've kept these numbers for nearly 7 years and counting. Change was hard but those who want to be part of the program are willing to invest their time...not just pay dues and collect awards.

Krampus - Can you give some more details on this?

What percentages are you using?

Who in the Troop came up with them?

If a scout becomes inactive how long does it take before he is considered active again?

[qwazse 4342]

To balance my reporting ... although we didn't harp on the definition of "active", I routinely made declarations like:

• The SM and I don't care about the patch on your sleeve, if you didn't do the work, you didn't hold the position.
• If you're not wearing the patch, but you do the work, guess what position you're holding?
• If you're not at a meeting we'll miss you. Let your PL know so we don't worry!
• If you don't know where your boys are, you're not leading.
• If you do and you don't have the PL patch, you're leading. Think about it.

Likewise, now that we've merged troops, I've suggested to the SPL (who just joined my crew) that he have patrols sound off at every meeting just like we've done at summer camp.

 

Being passionate about where your troop/patrol is and what they are doing ... I guess that's "front end" attendance enforcement.

[Krampus 696]

Krampus - Can you give some more details on this?

What percentages are you using?

Who in the Troop came up with them?

If a scout becomes inactive how long does it take before he is considered active again?

 

To baseline the level of participation at camp outs and service projects they used sign in sheets for several years previous to see who showed and who did not. It was well known that most 9-12 graders only show for the holiday party, a friend's Eagle COH, when they needed an SMC or BOR, or when they needed a MB or signature.

 

We then made a concerted effort to continue tracking attendance at major events (camping, service projects, Eagle projects, PLC), as well as to track simple meeting attendance. We also put in place having scouts develop objectives with their POR so they have something to measure their efforts against.

 

Over a two year period we saw the changes noted above. There was increased engagement across the board, greater participation in PORs and better retention. This worked for our unit, BUT it took getting buy in from the adult leaders, parents and the troop. It had to be boy led or it would never have worked. Thankfully a string of young SPLs helped drive this effort and lead to its success.

[fred johnson 936]

I think its wrong-headed to use the advancement method to manipulate boys into participating.

You're just as likely to get a bunch of boys who abandon advancement.

 

Fully agree.  

[Krampus 696]

Fully agree.

And yet what my unit saw was greater participation and advancement.

Edited December 17, 2015 by Krampus

[Stosh 3452]

My PL's phone their members before each meeting and when he shows up, knows who's going to be there and who's not.  It really cuts down on the sluffing off when there's a direct contact.  It's one of those "Take care of your boys" leadership opportunities for the boys.  It also cuts down on the "I forgot to bring...." problem too.

[qwazse 4342]

@@Krampus, what I'm saying is that it's not just the standards (which are admirable BTW), it's the enthusiasm of the boys. If they are enthusiastic about advancement, it'll work. If they could care less about advancement but are enthusiastic about executing each campout flawlessly, it'll still work. If they are enthusiastic about fellowship because the 15 minutes of dodge ball and 5 minutes of silly songs, it'll still work.

 

If you have a steady stream of boys who are enthusiastic about the same general things one formula works perfectly, until you get a half-dozen odd ducks (like one of those patrols your SPL is up in arms about) who will come and go and make your stats look bad ... unless you figure out how to get under their skin.

[Krampus 696]

@@Krampus, what I'm saying is that it's not just the standards (which are admirable BTW), it's the enthusiasm of the boys. If they are enthusiastic about advancement, it'll work. If they could care less about advancement but are enthusiastic about executing each campout flawlessly, it'll still work. If they are enthusiastic about fellowship because the 15 minutes of dodge ball and 5 minutes of silly songs, it'll still work.

 

If you have a steady stream of boys who are enthusiastic about the same general things one formula works perfectly, until you get a half-dozen odd ducks (like one of those patrols your SPL is up in arms about) who will come and go and make your stats look bad ... unless you figure out how to get under their skin.

 

Agreed. Thankfully the issue seems to be those two PLs simply not wanting to put in the effort because they think it is worthless. The SPL has shown them (first hand) how poor planning means continued boredom...and this time it was their fault. I think a light bulb went on.

[PA Scoutmaster 38]

I don't like to use a specified number or percentage. It really depends on the boy. One of the best SPL's I've ever had was also captain of several travel soccer teams, taking multiple AP courses, etc. There were a number of outings where he just was not able to attend, even though he wanted to. He was great at delegating to his ASPL, He gave detailed instructions, came to the church Friday night to make sure everybody was ready and followed up with his ASPL and PL's after. If I only looked at numbers, his performance was somewhat lacking. But every outing was successful, even when he couldn't be there. 

 

I've also seen PL's that go to every single outing, but are disengaged and not really concerned with running their patrols. 

 

The key question for any POR - Did you do the job?