Scouting Too Flexible For Patrol Method?

[BrentAllen]

My son is will be crossing over in March, so we are looking at Boy Scout Troops. Our Pack isn't affiliated with a Troop; we are looking at several nearby. I think what I am seeing is commonplace in today's Scouting, but would like to hear from others around the country.

 

The Troops have a certain number of boys registered, sayd 50 - 60. Out of that number, a percentage, usually around 1/2, will show up consistently for meetings. Another number will show up for camping trips. One Scouter described it that way - 3 numbers for a Troop:

1. Scouts registered.

2. Scouts attending weekly meetings.

3. Scouts going on campouts.

 

There are a number of reasons given for the three numbers. Scouts are busy with other activities, some Scouts like the meetings, some like camping, etc.... The Troops try to be as accomodating as they can, just asking the Scouts to show up when they can. At meetings, activities, or campouts, they sometimes have enough to operate in defined Patrols, other times they don't, and form ad hoc Patrols.

My questions - is this something that is happening everywhere, and is this how the problem is solved? Do you find the Scouts are learning the true lessons of the Patrol method?

 

Maybe my memory is playing tricks on me, but I seem to remember we usually had very good turnout at both meetings and campouts. I don't remember having to combine Patrols to have enough members to function. This was back in the mid to late 70's, and we had plenty of boys playing other sports (including me). We also limited the Troop to 40 boys, and had a waiting list.

 

Are the Troops making it too easy to skip meetings and campouts, in order to keep them at least minimally involved in Scouting? Does patronizing to these marginal Scouts hurt the rest who show up consistently?

 

My admittedly inexperienced solution would be to divide the Scouts into 2 groups - full-timers and part-timers, and form Patrols in the two groups. Let those who show up regularly form Patrols and function as a group, really following and learning from the Patrol method. Let the others either fill in gaps with the full-timers, or form a part-time Patrol at each event. I'm sure there are many flaws with this idea. I'm curious to hear how others are handling the situation.

[madmike]

we would usually have more scouts on the outings than at the meetings it seemed.

 

But I dont see anything wrong with having a patrol made up of the most active members of the trooop.

 

I think one problem (I am in your area) is that maybe there are too many troops, and some consolidation needs to be done, but then the adults start turf wars and "stuff"

 

 

[Eagledad]

>>Are the Troops making it too easy to skip meetings and campouts, in order to keep them at least minimally involved in Scouting? Does patronizing to these marginal Scouts hurt the rest who show up consistently?

[Lisabob]

Brent I think what you are describing is fairly typical and to a large extent reflects forces beyond the troop's control. The questions I would have if I were looking at joining this troop are related to the overall strength of the patrol method in this troop and to different potential causes for shifting attendance. Specifically:

 

1) How often is turn out low enough for a camp out that it becomes necessary to combine patrols? If it is just occasional that's one thing; if it is half of the time or better, that might make me wonder.

2) Do the patrols ever do any activities on their own? If so, what and how often? Is this actively encouraged by the troop? This would be a good sign of a troop with a strong patrol system, in my view. (though I also think it is a fairly rare occurrence!)

3) If turn-out at camp outs is lower, why is that the case? Who sets the agenda for the camp outs? Boys or adults? How far in advance is the schedule set so that people with other obligations can at least try to plan around them? It could be that the boys are not attending because they aren't that interested in the activities (if they didn't have a say in choosing them) or because their parents aren't given enough prior notice.

4) What's the cost of attending typical camp outs and what opportunities do boys have to raise that money through troop fundraisers? A lot of troops around here charge $10-$15/camp out and that can add up for some people and result in lower participation levels. Hopefully the troop provides opportunities for the boys to earn this money.

5) Is there an identifiable "core" of boys who are nearly always in attendance, or is it really a rotating cast of characters? The latter is more problematic than the former.

 

 

In my son's troop of about 40 boys, there are about 15 who attend practically every event. There are another 15-20 who attend more often than not, but who work around various other scheduling issues like sports, band, work (for older boys), and in some cases, parental custody issues. Then there are about 5 boys who seldom attend and to the extent that they do, it seems fairly random. And I have to agree with Barry that you just have to work with the boys who are there. Those who aren't should also understand that they are going to miss some things in the process too; advancement and election to leadership may be slower (or may not happen at all) if you aren't present.

 

 

[prairie]

Dumb question (or maybe not), how many troops are trying to meet after school as opposed to after supper?

Background: only our Cub dens met after school, both Webelos and Scout meetings were 7:pm, also took care of the wearing the uniform to school issue.

[Lisabob]

We don't do that because the adults can't be there at 3 or 4 in the afternoon. I imagine that's the case in most places these days. However, if you have enough adult leaders with flexible work schedules and/or who do not work, great. As a side note though - around here the middle schools schedule most of their extra-curriculars right after school (including social events like movies and dances), so that would be an additional conflict for us.

[msnowman]

In regards to meeting time/night, both our Pack and Troop meet on Sundays. The Pack meets from 3-430pm and the Troop meets from 630-8pm. This has reduced the conflicts either group has had w/ sports and afterschool activities...and also parent activities such as PTO, Fire Department, etc.

 

YiS

Michelle

[EagleInKY]

I would classify scouts (in regards to attendance patterns) into these groups:

 

1) Those who are very involved and this is their primary activity. These scouts are present close to 100% of the time. They may miss occasionally due to a sport, band or school function. But it's the exception.

2) Those that are interested, but are over-programmed. These are the kids in several sports. When sports don't get in the way, they are very involved. But you may go weeks or months and rarely see them during their various seasons.

3) Those that consider scouts a filler activity and get involved whenever they feel like it.

 

In our troop I would say that about 50-60% are in group 1, 25-30% in group 2, and 10-20% in group 3.

 

Given those percentages, we are likely to have about 75% of the troop "involved" at any given time. I generally assume those kind of numbers when we're planning an activity. We are currently at 25 boys. I usually assume we're going to have 16-20 participate in an activity or at a troop meeting. And that usually holds true.

 

As for the patrol system, you may want to consider this in forming patrols. We have a patrol of normally very strong, active, dedicated scouts. I would categorize all of them to be in that first group. But several of them are in marching band. So, for a couple of months in the fall, they miss quite a bit. During that time this normally active patrol may sometimes have only 2 or 3 members present. It would have been better if these guys were spread across the patrols, but then they wouldn't be with their best friends. It's a catch-22.

 

We've had debates over patrol sizes. I'm of the opinion that about 8 or 9 is the right number, given that you'll probably have 5-7 at any given activity. If you have a patrols of 6, you could easily have an event with only 2 or 3 boys.

 

We plan our program around the ones who are active. For example, a scout who never misses a troop meeting or activity would have no problem earning First Class in his first year. On the other hand, we don't make special arrangements for those scouts who appear when it's convenient. For example, a few years ago we had a scout that missed every orienteering event we had over two years. There was always a conflict with one of his many sports. (He's a category 2 scout). We didn't set up an orienteering course just so he could get his First Class. It was up to him to find a way to participate the next time the opportunity arose.

 

As for making it easy to miss things, I have heartburn over this at times as well. Band Directors, soccer coaches and others have no problem saying that they must be present 100% of the time or they don't play. But we don't do anything like that. I think that's why we get the situation of scouts taking the back seat at times. I ask parents to put scouts on an equal playing field. When there are conflicts, they should sometimes choose scouts over the other activities so your son can see that it is important too.

 

The one thing I've started to do is to hold firm on deadlines for signing up for things. I have a few of those "show up when they feel like it" types that always show up the week after a deadline for an activity. They always play the "I didn't know about it" card, and I've generally been nice and let them in. But we're taking a harder stand now and are starting to say no. It will be interesting to see if it changes involvement levels. I don't think it will. I think it will just lead to them getting frustrated and leaving.

 

I've rambled, but the final thought I'd make is that it's our job to try and make scouts as fun an activity as possible. If we are doing fun things, boys will want to participate. Oh, there are exceptions, but it generally holds true.

[jr56]

I've seen many of the same problems over the last 10 years or so, and have tried many of the solutions put forth on other posts. In the end, you try to be as accomodating as possible and serve as many youth as you can.

[SR540Beaver]

Brent,

 

There has been a lot of good suggestions and info already presented. I'll parrot something EagleDad said. We run large patrols of 10 to 12. That way if even only half the boys show for a meeting or outing, they can still effectively function as a patrol. We have about 65 on our current roster. Oue SM says that absolutely nothing good can come from combining patrols and he advises strongly against it. My son was elected as PL a few months ago. At that time, his patrol was fairly light with about 7 scouts. Some of those boys were iffy at that time and he now has a patrol of 3. A couple of campouts back, the SM relented and decided to take my son's patrol and another patrol thata was going to be low in numbers for that campout to combine for cooking and KP purposes ONLY. He even said at that time he didn't want to do it and couldn't see anything good coming from it.....but he was trying to keep every patrol member from having to cook and clean at every meal and run high on their grocery bill. I won't bore you with the details, but sure enough it was a disaster all the way around with my son getting burned because of the stupid actions of a kid in the other patrol and that kid being disciplined.

 

My point is, run the patrol size high so you have enough even when half don't show up and resist the temptation to combine small patrols. Even if only 2 or 3 show up, they can take care of their own business and can even do a two man activity for the campfire.

 

BTW, we are about to move the 20 new scouts we picked up this year into regular patrols. My son's patrol will be one of the patrols with the biggest gain.