Ad hoc patrols

[Brewmeister]

We have four patrols which are (for good or bad) age based. At any one campout attendance is hit or miss but we usually end up with two to three ad hoc patrols that by process of combination do end up being mixed age. It does work ok, but because "camping patrols" aren't the same one outing to the next there isn't the identity building that would happen with more continuity. It feels a bit like we are an arbitrarily split up troop rather than a collection of true patrols. I suspect this is fairly common in today's age of over-scheduled youth. Any thoughts?

[Venividi]

yup - you can run a drop in program with a subtle message of "come if you want, but if you're not here it doesn't really matter, we'll combine patrols so you wont be missed", or a program where a patrol feels the effect when patrol members opt out of participation, and apply peer pressure on those that don't come. Or somewhere in between. Youth will gravitate towards and feel loyalty to organizations where the expectations of their participation are high; where they feel they are needed.

 

What are your attendance expectations? Have they been communicated to scouts and parents? Is a scouts meeting troop participation requirements a factor considered when signing off on scout spirit? Are scouts contribution to the troop (or lack thereof) a consideration when signing off on scout spirit? How does a scout feel that he is truly needed by his patrol, and will leave a hole if he doesn't show up if the message is "thats OK, come when you want, you're team (i.e. patrol) will do just as good without you"?

 

The choice is really that of the key adults (SM, CC, AC). If you want the boys to develop greater character and citizenship, tighten up your standards. If you want a "drop in if you want, you dont need to contribute much effort to the success of the troop, we will still give you an award" type program, you can have that also. What is it that you want? Are you willing to put in the effort to move the program in that direction? Then go for it. You will likely meet a lot of resistance, and lose some members that dont want that type of program, but you will gain some other members from families that are looking for that type of program for their sons.

 

You dont need to be the lowest common denominator if you dont want to. But if you do want to, that is OK too.

[Brewmeister]

That's a false dichotomy. Scouting is the only youth group that meets year round. Life happens. No troop has people with completely similar priorities and clear calendars to make every event every time.

[Stosh]

It's not just thst life has a lot of options to deal with, but what message is given to the boy whose absense isn't noticed? You could not make it the last event? No problem, we got along just fine without you. Stosh

[Brewmeister]

However, scouting cannot be everything to a boy. Boys want to, and my son wants to, be involved in other things as well. I want my son to do those things, and I understand that other boys want to. It is unrealistic to expect 100% participation in scouts year-round for seven years of middle school and high school.

[qwazse]

First, I agree with V that if you are not key three, expect modest change. (Or in my case, extreme push-back from the boys.). There is nothing wrong with a "patrol of one." You may not want the little guy camping by himself 100 yards away in mountain lion country, but for challenges, troop duties and such, he should tackle them on his own. If he loses, he can talk to the patrol mates who bailed on him. If he wins, he represents his patrol with pride. I met one boy on a campout, who was cooking an outstanding batch of asparagus because he didn't have any of his patrol mates around to fuss about the menu. (He did have a lot of adults show up at his table with plates in hand!) Obviously, if you are doing climbing or whitewater, merge patrols as safety demands.

[Basementdweller]

That's a false dichotomy. Scouting is the only youth group that meets year round. Life happens. No troop has people with completely similar priorities and clear calendars to make every event every time.

We have a 75% attendance expectation......for youth and 85% for youth leadership. the penalty is the CC will refuse a BOR till you meet it and you won't be permitted to attend the most sought after events. So you can't skip the creek clean up, all the food pantry work, Busy beaver work weekend in our summer camp and expect to attend the Dave and Busters lock in. All fun and no work makes jack a dull boy.

 

It has made a difference in attendance.

 

 

I would try an experiment next outing.....No ad hoc patrols. Let a patrols spend a weekend with just a couple of guys cooking and cleaning the entire weekend should do the trick.

 

The boys may even ask to jumble the patrols up... You may end up with a couple of camping active patrols and a couple of non camping patrols.....That is ok too

[Eagledad]

Thoughts! I can't really add more than what's already been said; but Scouts, like adults, have to set priorities and make choices. If our troop consistantly suffered the losses on campouts that you describe, we would be asking ourselves what we are doing wrong. We also don't encourage ad hoc patrols. Barry

 

[Twocubdad]

That's a false dichotomy. Scouting is the only youth group that meets year round. Life happens. No troop has people with completely similar priorities and clear calendars to make every event every time.

Been there done that. These guys aren't stupid and talk to each other. It is not uncommon for an entire patrol to sit out a campout if a few key players don't attend.

[Venividi]

Brew,

 

Not a dichotomy, false or otherwise. It is a continuum. I didn't say that 100% attendance should be required (I made no mention of any specific attendance requirements, so I can see why you might have assumed that, sorry for the confusion). There is nothing wrong with a scout taking soccer season off, for example. If you are running 50% participation at campouts, (which would appear based on 4 patrols combining into 2), they never gel as patrols because it is constantly a different mix of boys. In my opinion, you are right to question it. You can create an environment where you use peer pressure to increase attendance percentage. You can use the carrot of advancement to increase attendance. To create an environment that fosters each patrol to gel as a group of boys that are close and will make every effort to be with their patrol.

 

Any time that a new "patrol" forms, which you are doing every campout, the group starts anew at the "forming" stage. The group never reaches the norming or performing stage. They are not getting the citizenship experiences; the being part of a group that they make every effort to help and support. The analogy is a pickup game of basketball compared with a team on a basketball league. In a league, not every player will be able to make it to every game and practice due to conflicts, but each individual will make every effort to be there because they know they will be missed. They want to support their team. With pickup games, even if regularly scheduled, individuals will not feel the same level of commitment. It still comes down to what the key leaders want the youth to get out of their membership.

 

Hope that this better explains my points.

 

regards,

[Venividi]

That's a false dichotomy. Scouting is the only youth group that meets year round. Life happens. No troop has people with completely similar priorities and clear calendars to make every event every time.

I would be OK with an entire patrol to choose not to go on an outing. It is their patrol.

[Brewmeister]

I understand what you're saying. Unfortunately, society being what it is today, sports and school extracurriculars can require attendance in order to participate. So To tell a boy that he must choose between an outing or an evening concert that is required for his grade is not a decision we are going to ask him to make. The consensus seems to be that ad hoc patrols are not a good idea because of the lack of continuity, and I understand. However, the patrol of one seems equally a bad idea and certainly doesn't promote any intra-patrol development and interaction either.

[Brewmeister]

Regarding advancement, since the bulk of advancement happens on campouts, boys who cannot attend do not advance as fast and that is visible to the other boys. Regarding the Quality of program, if capping out at a 75% participation rate is not good, I'm not quite sure what we would do. The boys are the ones choosing and planning the outings. I guess we can ask the patrol leaders Council to think about why they don't get higher participation, but I also suspect that they believe the participation is fairly good as it is.

[Brewmeister]

One more clarification. The patrols are not put together randomly. The senior patrol leader usually works with the camping group to combine existing controls. So each ad hoc patrol usually consists of members of two regular patrols

[qwazse]

I understand what you're saying. Unfortunately, society being what it is today, sports and school extracurriculars can require attendance in order to participate. So To tell a boy that he must choose between an outing or an evening concert that is required for his grade is not a decision we are going to ask him to make. The consensus seems to be that ad hoc patrols are not a good idea because of the lack of continuity, and I understand. However, the patrol of one seems equally a bad idea and certainly doesn't promote any intra-patrol development and interaction either.

If it's always the same kid, maybe you have a problem. Maybe the boy actually does fit in with a different patrol. Or, maybe you have a real PL in the making. It's hard to tell this side of the internet. If it's a really young scout, maybe the SPL can keep one eye on him to figure out what the true situation is.

 

I can't remember if I was in a patrol of one situation as a scout. I do remember a morning when the SPL taught me how to restart a fire from the previous night's embers. Just him and me ... none of my patrol were there (to the best of my memory). For the rest of my tenure in the troop I became the guy who was up before sunrise lighting the fire.