Is More Units the Answer?

[Chippewa29 13]

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?

[scoutldr 732]

"but wouldn't a single troop of 20 Scouts work better than two troops of ten Scouts each?"

 

Not when it comes to meeting the DE's performance goals.

 

 

[OneHour 11]

what they are doing is to plant the seeds and hoping that the program will sell itself and prospers. There will come a time when the pack/troop/crew will have the fortune to land a great set of adult leaders who care in enough to care it, feed it, and grow it.

 

scoutldr is right, each district, council, or region has its own target number to grow. Each DE has objectives for his/her district. As in any corporation, you cannot measure growth, effectiveness, or wellness based on steady state.

[Beavah 205]

what they are doing is to plant the seeds and hoping that the program will sell itself and prospers.

 

Yah, right. Someone thinks that's a professional business model, eh?

 

Find me a business that makes a capital investment (in personnel time, real costs, and goodwill) in starting a new operation without first looking at whether the necessary resources are available and whether the market is there.

 

A good organization invests in manageable growth when there is capacity and market, not before, and certainly not "hoping it will sell itself" and magically find resources. In this case, we hurt children because we promise them the magic of Scouting in these new, underexperienced, underequipped units and then we fail to deliver.

 

Every good corporation in a service industry measures effectiveness by customer satisfaction (quality of service) and lack of customer turnover (aka repeat business). These are uniquely, oddly, absurdly absent in the BSA performance criteria. Imagine what we would be like if professional salaries and promotions were based on boys' and parents perceptions of program quality, unit leaders' and COR's perceptions of quality of service, and customer loyalty/retention of active youth and adults.

 

That would almost make da BSA a worthy real profession. If someone added components based on youth outcomes, we might actually be a NFP service organization.

 

Now those are changes that'd do more good than anything as trivial as updatin' da uniform or a few badges.

 

[Chippewa29 13]

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.

[eagle_scout98 10]

Good or bad, each District (and the professionals in them) have requirements for growing Scouting. This not only includes the number of Scouts but the number of units as well.

I have talked to enough people and the general consensus is the "if you build it, they will come" mentality. In our District units are focused (Cub ones anyway) on schools, then churches, then other organizations. Boy Scout units and Venturing units are hit or miss on where they charter in my opinion.

I can see the logic, but also agree that you should focus on serving the units that are existing before worrying about a second unit.  I had that discussion with a DE last night.

- unless otherwise referenced, all writings are of my OPINION and therefore should be taken with a grain of salt.

- eagle_scout98 -

[scoutldr 732]

My 12 year old mentally challenged nephew who recently relocated here hit the nail on the head. He came here after a bitter custody battle to get him away from his alcoholic/drug abusing mother. I have been trying to get him into scouts ... he was in Cubs where he was. His answer, "you can't trust adults. They promised to take me camping and we never went." The kid is smart enough to realize that he needs to avoid situations where adults let him down.

 

The cub pack that I started in 1984 was once up to 150 boys...15 dens. I just got the district stats and the unit currently has 6 registered cubs, and will probably not be around much longer. It breaks my heart, yet we are still being pressured to form new units in the same neighborhoods.

[Fuzzy Bear 12]

To Unit or not to Unit, that is the question.

 

Should we have two units of ten boys or one unit of twenty boys?

 

I would unquestioningly go with the two with ten each.

 

Why, because

 

-the D.E. wants it that way.

I have to ask myself, is the D.E. just shooting for numbers?

If he/she wants numbers, then we are both in agreement and it should not be a secret.

Yes, I want numbers as much as the D.E. does.

 

-Does the D.E. want two with ten which means that we should expect two mediocre and under funded units?

Yes, the D.E. will accept two under funded and mediocre units.

I accept this as well.

 

What reasons are you giving for wanting things this way? Are you just going along to get along? Are you kissing behind to get a badge or what are you thinking?

 

I have stories to tell but it boils down to this.

 

-Competition is good.

-Having units struggle allows them to grow by reaching out to all of their resources.

-Having units struggle allows them to get to training earlier and to use that training.

-Having help to assist from the District allows people with resources to help those without. We help one another. We dont want units to feel like they have entered a vacuum and they are drowning.

 

One example and I will sign off.

 

We have a District person that signed on to put together a Where to Go Camping guide. That was two years ago. I could have completed this one Resource activity in two weeks. Am I better than the other person, No, matter of fact, he is much better suited for the job and that is why it surprises me that he is incapable of accomplishing the task.

 

What keeps him from performing?

No competition for the job.

He has not viewed his duty as a struggle and he has failed to use his resources,

He has failed to use multiple resources.

He has failed to ask for help from others that could have helped complete the task months and months ago.

 

Moral of the Story-Know and use your resources.

 

[Chippewa29 13]

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.

[Fuzzy Bear 12]

Chip,

 

Let me make a prediction. One of two things will happen to your proposal. You will never reach the 50 limit. You will never split the Troop once you reach the 50 limit. It is simpler to say that you will never do what you say you will do. Yet, I believe that what you are proposing is truthful.

 

FB

 

 

[Chippewa29 13]

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.

[Fuzzy Bear 12]

Chip,

 

I suggest trying a modified model borrowed from an evangelical church that I have known about. The organization takes a group of willing and trained adults, along with their families and they start a fully functioning unit in the area that shows growth. The idea is that there is no turning back to the former unit. If they need help, they reach out to the District.

 

Start with a person that has shown a desire to become a SM; there will always be one or two. Have him/her fully trained as well as reading the SM handbook. Get a fully trained Committee and 2 trained ASM's so that adult leadership and recruiting efforts will be exceptionally strong. Plan for a year and let them set sail.

 

This, of course, is easier said than done because of what I call the Rule of Laziness. It is a type of "gravitational pull" that disallows people to achieve something beyond what is already in place. If it does work, it will be because one person has a desire that is stronger than the threshold that keeps his/her behind in the lawn chair of life.

 

I really hope you find that one person.

 

FB

 

 

FB

 

 

[Chippewa29 13]

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 Bear 12]

Chip,

 

I believe one well trained and seasoned individual could do the job. This individual is the kind of person that can turn a large event with very little money and is also fun to be around. This person is not hard to spot but is generally not available. He/She is also hard to let go. So, a well stocked Plan B is the next best choice.

 

You sound like you are well versed.

 

FB