Ad hoc patrols

[Stosh]

I don't think that ad hoc patrols is the real reason for the problem of attendance. As a matter of fact they are simply a work around for a bigger problem that is basically ignored because it's easier to make up the rules along the way than it is to solve the problem.

 

A) We have low attendance at our events.

B) So we combine patrols to keep from dealing with A above.

C) Boys that show up have fun, the rest miss out. But that's okay, those that showed up had fun.

 

What's wrong with attacking the problem at the A level? Why is there low attendance in the first place. If one can solve that problem, then the issue of ad hoc patrols becomes moot... AND ALL the boys have fun.

 

Stosh

I never said the problem was 100% of the boys needed to attend. I never expected 100% of my boys showing up for anything. But if the root cause is because there are other things out there that are more fun/interesting, it means that 1) your boys can't think up events that are more fun/interesting than what some other program has or 2) the events are not what the boys want in the first place, so they are seeking out more fun/interesting events elsewhere.

 

Brew, I agree that expecting 100% is unrealistic, but I am also a firm believer that low attendance is not always because something else in their life is more important. I'm a firm believer that if given a good program, designed by the boys themselves, will get the boys who sit on the fence to show up. Hmmmm, hang out with my scout buddies vs. hang out with my X-Box friends? Heck, I can X-Box anytime, but the event on Saturday sounds better, at least for this weekend. Okay, you have one win. Now start working on the next. When there is not a compelling reason to not attend a Scout event, why are they choosing to miss?

 

Stosh

[Stosh]

For POR - missing campouts means you might be replaced. Triggers an SMC and discussion of sign offs..

My POR's were never locked into any time limit/term. If a boy gets selected to be PL, if he doesn't do his job, the patrol does not need to suffer for 6 months while the PL garners enough time for advancement. He's out and someone who wants to work is in. If a boy chooses to advance, he has to have 6 months experience in any POR position to get credit for it. It might mean one month as PL, one as TG, one as Instructor, one as Scribe, etc. They all need to add up to 6 months experience. He can sort out is inability to hold POR in any one job when he gets to his BOR. This 6 month election cycle is not on my radar, nor is it required for advancement. If I have a FC scout that is a dynamite PL, he can hold that job until he's 18 years old if his patrol buddies want that. I don't interfere in the operations of the Patrols. Micromanaging is not why I'm there.

 

Stosh

[Brewmeister]

I don't think that ad hoc patrols is the real reason for the problem of attendance. As a matter of fact they are simply a work around for a bigger problem that is basically ignored because it's easier to make up the rules along the way than it is to solve the problem.

 

A) We have low attendance at our events.

B) So we combine patrols to keep from dealing with A above.

C) Boys that show up have fun, the rest miss out. But that's okay, those that showed up had fun.

 

What's wrong with attacking the problem at the A level? Why is there low attendance in the first place. If one can solve that problem, then the issue of ad hoc patrols becomes moot... AND ALL the boys have fun.

 

Stosh

Jblake, that's not a good example and I think you know it. The drop off is not coming from boys who are sitting around on Saturday morning wasting the day away in front of the TV. The issue is not the choice between X-Box and Scouting. The choice is between football that requires attendance and Scouting that doesn't, marching band that requires attendance and Scouting that doesn't, etc etc etc.

 

Scouting is a year-round program that spans 7 years and offers monthly events. That's a lot of stuff. And the reality is that while a patrol can function at a campout without a few members or even its PL, the football team isn't going to do well if its QB and middle linebackers choose to go camping instead. It doesn't matter how compelling the event is.

 

So Scouting has a choice--require participation and try to recruit a hard-core group of Scouting-only boys who choose to be involved in no other extracurriculars that might conflict, or offer a more flexible program. I know there are folks here who say "Give me a single-patrol troop that is truly committed to scouting and I'll be happy," but that's just not realistic.

 

I'm sure there will be disagreements with that assessment....

[Eagledad]

I don't think that ad hoc patrols is the real reason for the problem of attendance. As a matter of fact they are simply a work around for a bigger problem that is basically ignored because it's easier to make up the rules along the way than it is to solve the problem.

 

A) We have low attendance at our events.

B) So we combine patrols to keep from dealing with A above.

C) Boys that show up have fun, the rest miss out. But that's okay, those that showed up had fun.

 

What's wrong with attacking the problem at the A level? Why is there low attendance in the first place. If one can solve that problem, then the issue of ad hoc patrols becomes moot... AND ALL the boys have fun.

 

Stosh

I think you stated it well Brew, our troop while I was SM typically had about 65% partiicipation during most activities because of sports and band. But we had a reputation for accepting other outside activities and were a popular troop as a result. I remember a 100% attendence during January and summer when there were no sports. It was normal for band and football players to show up to campouts on saturday mornings. After their season was over, they were full time scouts again. It worked well for us. Barry

[Basementdweller]

I don't think that ad hoc patrols is the real reason for the problem of attendance. As a matter of fact they are simply a work around for a bigger problem that is basically ignored because it's easier to make up the rules along the way than it is to solve the problem.

 

A) We have low attendance at our events.

B) So we combine patrols to keep from dealing with A above.

C) Boys that show up have fun, the rest miss out. But that's okay, those that showed up had fun.

 

What's wrong with attacking the problem at the A level? Why is there low attendance in the first place. If one can solve that problem, then the issue of ad hoc patrols becomes moot... AND ALL the boys have fun.

 

Stosh

increase your patrol size to 10. With a typical 65% participation you will have functioning patrols.

[Stosh]

I don't think that ad hoc patrols is the real reason for the problem of attendance. As a matter of fact they are simply a work around for a bigger problem that is basically ignored because it's easier to make up the rules along the way than it is to solve the problem.

 

A) We have low attendance at our events.

B) So we combine patrols to keep from dealing with A above.

C) Boys that show up have fun, the rest miss out. But that's okay, those that showed up had fun.

 

What's wrong with attacking the problem at the A level? Why is there low attendance in the first place. If one can solve that problem, then the issue of ad hoc patrols becomes moot... AND ALL the boys have fun.

 

Stosh

Dumping more boys into a patrol to increase those at an event is not really solving the problem. Having 100 boys in a patrol so that 6 show up for events only emphasizes there's a bigger problem going on and that simply pushing numbers around isn't really addressing the issue. Covering symptoms is not working on a cure.

 

Stosh

[Eagledad]

I don't think that ad hoc patrols is the real reason for the problem of attendance. As a matter of fact they are simply a work around for a bigger problem that is basically ignored because it's easier to make up the rules along the way than it is to solve the problem.

 

A) We have low attendance at our events.

B) So we combine patrols to keep from dealing with A above.

C) Boys that show up have fun, the rest miss out. But that's okay, those that showed up had fun.

 

What's wrong with attacking the problem at the A level? Why is there low attendance in the first place. If one can solve that problem, then the issue of ad hoc patrols becomes moot... AND ALL the boys have fun.

 

Stosh

We averaged 10 per patrol and 7 per patrol at scouting activities. It wasn't a problem in our troop, it was part of the program. The expectation on our scouts to their patrol is loyalty, not attendence. The expectations on the PLC attendence are high for obvious reasons, but we found the scouts planning their leadership ambition around their schedule. Football players and band members didn't take on a high leadersip positions until Spring. One of my best SPLs planned his schedule around his swimming schedule. Barry

[Brewmeister]

I don't think that ad hoc patrols is the real reason for the problem of attendance. As a matter of fact they are simply a work around for a bigger problem that is basically ignored because it's easier to make up the rules along the way than it is to solve the problem.

 

A) We have low attendance at our events.

B) So we combine patrols to keep from dealing with A above.

C) Boys that show up have fun, the rest miss out. But that's okay, those that showed up had fun.

 

What's wrong with attacking the problem at the A level? Why is there low attendance in the first place. If one can solve that problem, then the issue of ad hoc patrols becomes moot... AND ALL the boys have fun.

 

Stosh

jblake, you're using an extreme example again. We don't have 6% attendance, we have 60%, and often more. So the problem was going from a 4-boy patrol to a 2-boy, not from a 100 to a 6 in your example.

 

We reorganized from 6 patrols to 3 patrols of 8. History has shown that we'll get 5 to 6 boys per patrol at any particular event and that is a very functional amount in my opinion. At least it's a place to start.

[Stosh]

I don't think that ad hoc patrols is the real reason for the problem of attendance. As a matter of fact they are simply a work around for a bigger problem that is basically ignored because it's easier to make up the rules along the way than it is to solve the problem.

 

A) We have low attendance at our events.

B) So we combine patrols to keep from dealing with A above.

C) Boys that show up have fun, the rest miss out. But that's okay, those that showed up had fun.

 

What's wrong with attacking the problem at the A level? Why is there low attendance in the first place. If one can solve that problem, then the issue of ad hoc patrols becomes moot... AND ALL the boys have fun.

 

Stosh

Of course I used an extreme example to point out that numbers are not always the issue. If one has only 6 boys showing up out of 100 the issue might not be attendance, but maybe there's some valid reason why 94 boys chose not to attend... MAYBE it could be the activity/program choice.

 

BP suggests that patrols are 6-8 boys, that means on average with 60% attendance you should minimally have 4-5 boys for the event, enough not to have to ad hoc the patrols. He doesn't suggest going over 8 because the average PL can't handle bigger groups of boys in the patrol. BGG goes for the 6-8 as well. Sometimes tradition has some underlying validity to it that isn't always evident to the casual observer.

 

I keep my patrols 6-8 and I never have had to consolidate patrols, unless the activity was something the boys really didn't want to attend in the first place and that has nothing to do with patrols, but the program itself.

 

Stosh

[Brewmeister]

I don't think that ad hoc patrols is the real reason for the problem of attendance. As a matter of fact they are simply a work around for a bigger problem that is basically ignored because it's easier to make up the rules along the way than it is to solve the problem.

 

A) We have low attendance at our events.

B) So we combine patrols to keep from dealing with A above.

C) Boys that show up have fun, the rest miss out. But that's okay, those that showed up had fun.

 

What's wrong with attacking the problem at the A level? Why is there low attendance in the first place. If one can solve that problem, then the issue of ad hoc patrols becomes moot... AND ALL the boys have fun.

 

Stosh

Well, then I guess we have brought our patrols in line with BP's suggestion. Now to see if it works....

[Giltweasel]

We are set up with age segregated Patrols. This is what I inherited. Coming Monday we have a PLC and Patrol reorganization is on the agenda. It will be interesting to hear what the arguments are. Very much looking forward to some younger guys arguing that they have as much credibility in their woodcraft skills as some of the older Eagle-bound parlour Scouts, and should be given more chances for Troop leadership and authority.

 

Or it might be more smolder and less fire.

 

Love this stuff.