Linked troops won't work

[cchoat]

1 hour ago, fred johnson said:

I'm not saying Charter Orgs can't succeed with single gender troops.  

I'm saying BSA will create a mess forcing the "Linked Troop" model.

For our charter org, they don't have enough calendar nights free or separate space to support a second scouting unit.  From our current sense, we "think" we won't have enough interest to have a strong separate program.  We think a combined unit with single gender patrols (our choice) would strengthen the existing unit and give new opportunities to girls.  We also have multiple adult leaders in the unit that have young girls that would like to try scouts.  

Fully agree, as you could be talking about my chartered organization when you speak of shoehorning in another troop meting.  They would not get a good time or night.

In my very large sized, very low population density rural district, (at highway speed, 65 miles an hour, it takes about an hour and a half to travel from one end to the other north/south and 45 minutes to an hour east/west) we currently have eight registered units, three of them LDS, who will be gone in 2020. All of them are small and clustered around the two major population areas.  We already have to few "leaders" who step forward to give of their time and so few youth (boys) that actively participate in the program now. To form new units for the small handful of girls currently in the Cub program now is not realistic, and I fear that if forced to maintain two separate, but equal programs, would cause greater damage to enticing young ladies to join and stay in the program.  Who would want to be in a troop of say, two?  What kind of leadership raining would they get taking turns leading each other?  Why would a sponsoring organization choose to have "Two" troops, when it already has a small, but effective troop already running? 

If BSA says that they embraced "Family Scouting" because it would give parents a one stop opportunity to participate in Scouting, how would that happen if the parents have to make meetings on two separate nights, at different locations?  Each unit doing different separate activities on different days and locations? 

Who thought this would work?  Someone who knew that this was a false flag, a way to get the proverbially camels nose under the tent, and open the way for co-ed troops.   

[NJCubScouter]

I don't know whether it is going to "work," but I do know that there is only one way it is going to "work."  It will work if the people who are concerned about whether it is going to work put themselves in a position to make it work, and then make it work.  Otherwise, you're correct, the people who want to take the easy way out are just going to turn it into a coed program.

[qwazse]

7 hours ago, TMSM said:

I was trying to think through how a shared meeting would happen if I had linked troops in my CO. Most troops in my area are 30-60 boys. We don't much interest from girls to join scouts but lets assume we get 5. In this scenario we would have 2 SPLs, which one would run the meeting? If we spilt meetings 50-50 that would mean a boy that has waited and worked hard to be SPL would have his experience cut in half and would share it with a girl who has little experience with Patrols or how Scouts works. I can predict right now how many boys will leave scouts if the see the girls getting an unfair advantage.

At shared campouts who picks the sites?, At planning meeting would the SPLs have to share running these meetings?

Sure things will be figured out in the end but my fear is that it will take away experience from the boys.

 

@TMSM, where is it written that you have to have two of every POR? If you get a new patrol of boys, do you all say, "Oops, time to get another SPL, QM, Scribe ..."?  When a troop is down to 16 (let alone 5) boys, we make it clear they don't need an SPL/ASPL. Two PLs and their assistants can do the trick. If they plan an activity with another troop, they may choose who will serve as SPL for the event.

When I was a scout, the Girl Scouts would check out gear from the QM just like our PLs would. We didn't have them appoint their own QM to get trained before they could borrow our tents. They came back no worse for the wear than if a patrol of our boys used them ('cept for the perfume smell).

If you're linked, you share resources ... PoR's are a resource. Tell your boys and girls that you'll support their decisions in how to share them. Why make this hard?

[Eagle1993]

Cascade Pacific Council has hired a Family Scout Director.  They have a plan to create 50 Girl Troops by Feb 1.  From what I can tell, the council is really focusing on the strategy and plan to add volunteers and help COs prepare for this change.  The councils that really take the lead and help COs navigate these waters will do well. The councils who don’t may have a mess on their hands.

[Eagle94-A1]

52 minutes ago, qwazse said:

@TMSM, where is it written that you have to have two of every POR? If you get a new patrol of boys, do you all say, "Oops, time to get another SPL, QM, Scribe ..."?  When a troop is down to 16 (let alone 5) boys, we make it clear they don't need an SPL/ASPL. Two PLs and their assistants can do the trick. If they plan an activity with another troop, they may choose who will serve as SPL for the event.

When I was a scout, the Girl Scouts would check out gear from the QM just like our PLs would. We didn't have them appoint their own QM to get trained before they could borrow our tents. They came back no worse for the wear than if a patrol of our boys used them ('cept for the perfume smell).

If you're linked, you share resources ... PoR's are a resource. Tell your boys and girls that you'll support their decisions in how to share them. Why make this hard?

So you too are saying "linked troops" are coed troops?

[TMSM]

1 hour ago, qwazse said:

@TMSM, where is it written that you have to have two of every POR? If you get a new patrol of boys, do you all say, "Oops, time to get another SPL, QM, Scribe ..."?  When a troop is down to 16 (let alone 5) boys, we make it clear they don't need an SPL/ASPL. Two PLs and their assistants can do the trick. If they plan an activity with another troop, they may choose who will serve as SPL for the event.

When I was a scout, the Girl Scouts would check out gear from the QM just like our PLs would. We didn't have them appoint their own QM to get trained before they could borrow our tents. They came back no worse for the wear than if a patrol of our boys used them ('cept for the perfume smell).

If you're linked, you share resources ... PoR's are a resource. Tell your boys and girls that you'll support their decisions in how to share them. Why make this hard?

Not sure you got my point. It really doesn't matter because none of our 6 feeder packs are adding girls to their packs and our CO has no interest in adding a girl troop. I hope this works out for the girls wanting to join Scouts but when I look at the local Venture crew numbers crumble I just dont see the interest from them.

[ParkMan]

29 minutes ago, TMSM said:

Not sure you got my point. It really doesn't matter because none of our 6 feeder packs are adding girls to their packs and our CO has no interest in adding a girl troop. I hope this works out for the girls wanting to join Scouts but when I look at the local Venture crew numbers crumble I just dont see the interest from them.

I think this is ultimately the much bigger question.  All our talk about structure of troops is for nothing if there are no girls to join.

I do though think the Venture crew issue is different.  We, as a larger Scouting community, just don't really have a clear value proposition for a Venture crew.  So, as a results teens - be they boys or girls - are just not that interested in the amorphous Crew concept.

[Treflienne]

11 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

All our talk about structure of troops is for nothing if there are no girls to join.

That's my concern.

So far my daughter doesn't know of any other girls in our town wanting to join Scouts BSA.   Maybe some will appear before February.   Or maybe we'll need to join with nearby towns.

[Southpaw]

Here in Salt Lake City, Utah I am finding interest from a few girls.  But, I am having trouble finding women that are willing to camp.  Moms are supportive of their daughters joining a Troop and are willing to help on Thursday night meetings.  But, no interest in or willingness to camp.

[shortridge]

40 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

All our talk about structure of troops is for nothing if there are no girls to join.

... and girls aren’t going to join if there are no troops in their area. Chicken, meet egg. 🐓 🥚 

[qwazse]

1 hour ago, TMSM said:

Not sure you got my point. It really doesn't matter because none of our 6 feeder packs are adding girls to their packs and our CO has no interest in adding a girl troop. I hope this works out for the girls wanting to join Scouts but when I look at the local Venture crew numbers crumble I just dont see the interest from them.

Oh, sorry, took your "trying to think through" as as actually having a problem to solve ... not making up a unecessary excuse. :P

I'm not seeing the demand here, either. But I'm thinking through this stuff because our CO has been open to this sort of thing, and life as a crew advisor has involved times of thinning rosters punctuated by kids walking up to my door wanting to go backpacking.

[HelpfulTracks]

I don’t know. Our troop and crew have same CO, COR, same meeting night, same meeting location (different rooms). We share equipment, but usually have different dates four outings, but not always. Sometimes we share programs or service projects.

We have different Committee’s, different unit leaders and different youth leadership.

The youth work out the logistics. Sometimes we have improvise on equipment.

Our focus has been on providing the best program we can for our units, less about reasons we can’t.

[ParkMan]

41 minutes ago, shortridge said:

... and girls aren’t going to join if there are no troops in their area. Chicken, meet egg. 🐓 🥚 

 

1 hour ago, Treflienne said:

That's my concern.

So far my daughter doesn't know of any other girls in our town wanting to join Scouts BSA.   Maybe some will appear before February.   Or maybe we'll need to join with nearby towns.

It's just a matter of time. 

Most of the girls who have been waiting to become Scouts are already in Girl Scouts.  It's going to take a few years for girls to get comfortable with the notion that BSA scouting is a valid choice and that they ought to check it out.  That will move more quickly if there are great troops to join, but it's going to take some time regardless.

In the short term, I think you find the best "boy" troop you can and see if you can steer the interest to establish a girl troop there - whether linked or separate.  Odds are that there is something about the "boy" troop's philosophy that will spill over to the "girl" troop.  As the CC of a troop, we're kinda just waiting for some adults to come along and show interest in a linked girl troop.  Since most of our volunteers are parents - there is not interest within that group to start a Girl Troop, but there is willingness to partner with people who are interested. 

[69RoadRunner]

I don't think having 2 boy troops under the same CO makes sense so why would having 1 boy and 1 girl troop under the same CO make sense?

If a CO chooses to add a girl troop and transfers half of the boy troop's money and gear over to the girl troop, don't you think that's going to create a lot of resentment?

[Eagle1993]

23 minutes ago, 69RoadRunner said:

I don't think having 2 boy troops under the same CO makes sense so why would having 1 boy and 1 girl troop under the same CO make sense?

If a CO chooses to add a girl troop and transfers half of the boy troop's money and gear over to the girl troop, don't you think that's going to create a lot of resentment?

No, because most linked Troops would only need about 10% of the equipment and a Scout is helpful.