Troop Size

[Stosh]

For every mega-troop that seems to be adult-led there are just as many small troops that are adult-led. I somehow lose the correlation of size to adult vs. boy led. The inverse would thus hold true as well. A troop of any size could be boy-led if they worked at it according to the BSA progam.

 

I just left a troop that was 35 on the books, 25 active and was totally adult-led. Go figure. :^)

 

I am led to believe that accomodating the youth of the area and program are higher priorities than actual playing the numbers game.

 

Someone threw out the numbers 33 packs and 20 troops. With packs generally running numbers higher than troops and only 4 years of service vs. 7 for scouting, it is obvious that there are going to be a lot of boys dropping out of scouting just because there isn't going to be any room for them. More troops? Sure, we'll get right on all the hundreds of leaders and their training right away. I don't see that happening very quickly anywhere either. Do you want to be a SM of a new troop and compete with an established troop with a good program?

 

It is my opinion that maybe we need to make better use of the resources we have rather than running around tossing together make-shift solutions to what seems an overwhelming problem.

 

Wouldn't more trained leadership within a troop be a better offer to the Webelos than newbies from the scouts all the way up to the CO? I don't see many parents are seeking a new troop over an established troop for their boys. They will join as a last resort and never really back their boy along the way.

 

I would much rather find an adult, train them and adult-lead a NSP within an existing troop before expecting a novice SM to take on all the Webelos leftovers from all the other troops in the area. Is this against BSA rules? Probably, but that doesn't mean those newbies will need to stay adult-led forever either. Buy some time, get them on their feet, teach them leadership and assimilate them into the troop in a year or two.

 

These boys aren't trying out for the team that has only so many players with a few sitting on the bench. These are excited Webelos that after AOL are coming off a great achievement in their scouting career, only to face the possibility that there aren't any troops out there that have a spot for them? I can see no Eagle possibility in this boy's future and it isn't his fault.

 

Mega troops don't just happen overnight and they don't pop up out of nowhere. Usually they are well established and have a long tradition of doing it a certain way. Right or wrong it doesn't make much difference, the boys are still exposed to Scouting in some form or another.

 

I have found that in other areas, not just Scouting, a little tweak here and there can make a difference for different situations. Try something different, experiment with something either for the newbies or maybe let reins loose a little on the older boys. Better yet, take your oldest boy patrol, make them all JASM's and have them run the 3-4 NSP's to give them the feel of actually being a SM of a virtual "troop" within the troop. I see this as a great opportunity for older boys to really function as a scout leader. If they fail? So what, the new scouts wouldn't have had a chance anyway if they had been turned away at the door in the first place.

 

Unless there is a vision beyond what we believe is our comfort level, we will only grow so far and then self-destruct so as not to be challenged beyond our success level. How can we instill great dreams in our boys, when we don't have one ourselves.

 

Do I sound like some wet-behind the ears idealistic 20 year old? We'll AARP has been after me for some time now and I'm not ready to sign up as yet.

 

I hear scouters complaining about not enough scouts and trying to retain the few they have and others complaining about too many wanting to join.

 

Isn't the BSA program flexible enough to accommodate everyone? Are we so rigid in our thinking, our rules, our traditions that we can't squeeze in a bunch of new boys?

 

I will triple or quadruple my numbers this year because of the influx of the Webelos II boys. We've (boys and adults both) been making plans to accomodate them. The word from Council has indicated that the next crop of Webelos II next year will do the same thing. That means not only will the Webelos this year need to work on FC they will also need extensive training in leadership to accommodate the large number of patrols that will be developed next year.

 

Now, we won't be able to keep that pace up for very long, but our community doesn't have that many boys for us to start pushing the 100+ numbers, but with 3-5 years before the boys start aging out, it is conceivable we will reach those numbers.

 

Now is the time for us to set the goal of 50 and quit? 75 and quit? 100 and quit?

 

Start more troops? That means competition to our troop for resources in the community, less trained leaders, no boy leaders to start with, etc.

 

I guess it's a little like Scout Night for Cubbing. If you want your boy in the Pack, we'll find a place for him. That's my philosophy for scouting as well. I may fall flat on my face, it may be the biggest fiasco this community has ever seen. It may be an embarrassment for our CO, but we won't know that for a while and until then, bring it on! I believe in my boys! I don't know if they can do it, but until they try, no one will know.

 

Stosh

 

[scoutmomma]

100 or more -- 150? -- in a troop boggles my mind!

 

My son's troop was small for quite a few years -- the year before he crossed over, 7 boys crossed over to what would become his troop, and it doubled in size. The following year, my son crossed over with 22 other boys, and the troop suddenly was ENORMOUS. The following year, another 8 crossed over -- with attrition, we were at 45 Scouts. This past year we rechartered with 42. We've been dealing with growing pains for the past three years, and finally feel we're getting a handle on it. I expect we'll be rechartering this year with 35 Scouts, and we are expecting 4 crossovers in March.

 

The adult support network has been of critical importance getting us through this huge growth phase -- used to be a campout might have 8 Scouts. These days, it's more like 20 Scouts on any given trip. Our annual ski trip this weekend will have 26 Scouts and 14 adults. A few years ago, that was unfathomable.

 

Part of the learning curve was increasing support for our Scoutmaster -- we now have five ASMs backing him up. Also our SPL has two ASPLs. We had four patrols at our max, but have backed that down to three. Yes, that means the patrols have 13 or 14 members each, but with other activities competing for the boys' attention that means we have 6-8 per patrol on any given trip -- so they can actually function as a patrol on an outing.

 

We've also been transitioning this year from adult-led to boy-led, and are working hard to teach our PLC how to plan and organize meetings and programs. For instance, since the beginning of the school year, the PLC met once a month 30 minutes before a regular troop meeting. Needless to say, they didn't get much planned past a couple of meetings! This past month, we counseled them to have a PLC meeting on a separate night for an hour, and they were able to cover much more ground. It's not completely boy-led yet -- more like the adult leadership presents choices to the PLC, which then picks, or adds their own twist. We feel like we're getting there, though.

 

It's been an interesting transition. The troop has a very different feel now, but I think it's working. I feel pretty confident, for instance, that our recharter this year will reflect a very active roster, whereas last year, we had were carrying at least a half dozen inactive Scouts whose parents paid their dues hoping they wouldn't drop.

 

I can't even begin to imagine how many ASMs we would need for a 100-member troop. Or what the committee would be like...or the fundraising!(This message has been edited by scoutmomma)

[BrentAllen]

jblake posted "I just left a troop that was 35 on the books, 25 active and was totally adult-led. Go figure. :^)"

 

Now I'm really confused. You've been posting for the past year about how strong your troop was, how boy-led it was, how strong in patrol-method it was, and now you say it was totally adult-led? What gives?

[Stosh]

jblake posted "I just left a troop that was 35 on the books, 25 active and was totally adult-led. Go figure. :^)"

 

Now I'm really confused. You've been posting for the past year about how strong your troop was, how boy-led it was, how strong in patrol-method it was, and now you say it was totally adult-led? What gives?

 

I'm sorry, but I guess confusion is going to prevail in the end. Be it sufficient that I am dual registered in multiple units and have switched from one unit to another, and with experience and training in all aspects of scouting except Tigers, I may have something to offer the forum. I guess I don't feel it necessary to justify myself to individuals on the forum. If that remains a problem for others, feel free to skip over my posts.

 

Stosh

[Stosh]

Scoutmomma, Congratulations! Doubling one's troop twice in a matter of a few years. It can be done, it's a challenge, but it can be done!

 

Now, with that being said, a few adults and few boys and you were able to handle what Cubbing dealt you. On the other hand, do you think if you have a lot of adults and a lot of boys, i.e. 50 members you could conceivably double just once in size over the next 2-3 years without a major collapse in the program? How many boys were you able to assimilate into the troop, become "ENORMOUS" and still not have to cut off membership at some pre-determined number? Or the worse side of that equasion, how many boys did you turn away? Thanks for proving to the nay-sayers, that it can be done.

 

Stosh

 

 

[Bob White]

Jblake you are ingoring physical limitatins that many units deal with. Our goal for instance is to double our Ship membership by years end to 30. Could we concievably double that in 2 or three years to 60?

 

No, not because we couln't find that many new members, but because our CO has set the limit at 30 purely due to physical limitations of the CO's facilities.

 

So no matter how you sell it, even if the scouts were available, not every scout unit has the ability to grow larger than their recources or owners determine.

 

Scoutmomma did not prove anyone wrong, and I do not understand why you would say she did. She said she had 40 some scouts and things were going fine. Did the vast majority of us not say thay we saw 30-65 scouts as a very workable size? Isn't 42 within those parameters?

 

Even the BSA says that that is the optimum size for a troop.

[scoutmomma]

I guess I wasn't really addressing the main point of the thread -- I wasn't trying to prove anyone wrong -- just discussing my troop's experience doubling and then doubling again. I have no idea if we'd be able to handle doubling again. We are still dealing with growing pains from getting so big so fast. For instance, we only have one active Scout over the age of 15 -- the vast majority are 13 and 14 years old, so we're not only dealing with the growing pains of the troop size and logistics, but also the growing pains of a bunch of adolescent boys who suddenly don't know what to do with their hormonal mood swings, etc. It's been an interesting time!

 

As I said, we're working hard on the boy-led transition, but recognize that we still need a large contingent of committed parents to provide the logistical support. If a 100-plus troop can do it, more power to 'em, but I can't speak to how the logistics would actually work!

[BrentAllen]

"I guess I don't feel it necessary to justify myself to individuals on the forum. If that remains a problem for others, feel free to skip over my posts."

 

That's it?? That's all you have to say?? Well, after reading your posts for the past year or so heaping praise on your boy-led patrol-method troop, and seeing them all directly contradicted by your admission that it was very adult run, and no further explanation given, I can only assume you have not been honest. All I can to that is a Scout is Trustworthy. He tells the truth.

 

January, 2008 posts:

"I just left a troop that was 35 on the books, 25 active and was totally adult-led. Go figure. :^)"

"I came from an adult-led troop that was able to define what the VP was to be."

 

January - March, 2007 posts:

"My SPL is 14. He runs the troop and is PL of the honor's patrol."

"Well, word got around that we were THE troop to join. Now our membership in the past 2 years has quadrupled and we have 4 full/active patrols and are overwhelmed with trying to maintain the high level of program we have enjoyed for so long with our "little" troop."

"In our troop, the SPL is the leader of the leaders. He is not head program honcho. He does not lead the meetings, nor does he run the show. He coordinates other leaders.

Each patrol in the troop is to be prepared to run the meeting with a flag ceremony, a training time, game time, and closing ceremony. The topic is up to them. They have to be ready when asked by the SPL to step up to the plate."

 

And, finally:

"I try to get as much responsibility and authority into the hands of the boys as possible. At that age they can handle a group of about 8 people with their leadership skills. They can experiment, try, suceed and fail with little or no serious consequences to the overall program of the troop. If they suceed, they become a great lead by example patrol for others to learn from. If they fail, the PLC and other more skilled scouts can offer suggestions, assistance, encouragement, etc. but the ultimate success of the patrol has to constantly be pushed back into the patrols. If they don't get back on their horse after being thrown, the leadership lesson will be lost to that patrol.

Every time an adult steps in and corrects, directs, mandates, issues ultimatums, etc. they are basically telling the boys they are not leading, they can't lead, and somebody has to step up to the plate and it isn't going to be the boys.

I see this constantly among the troop-led or adult-led units. And thus the ownership of the patrol is lost and the interest and growth won't happen.

The #1 responsbility of the PLC and adults is to make sure the patrols are independent, confident, trained, encouraged, and celebrated in their accomplishments. This is what the patrol-method is all about. If the patrol is not #1 in the program, then it's not the patrol-method in my book at least. And anyway, that's how we operate and it works great and if it ain't broken, we don't intend to fix it."

 

I think I have a pretty clear understanding now.

[scoutmomma]

I am dual registered in multiple units

 

I haven't been around for a year yet so I can't speak for past history, but this says to me that jblake47 is involved in more than one troop, of which at least one is boy-led and at least one adult-led.

[Bob White]

Hi Scoutmomma

 

You did nothing wrong, in fact I am sure many people are very excited for you for the unit growth you have experienced. It was jblake who tried to use what your unit did as evidence that we were wrong in some ways.

 

Your fine,

best regards

BW

[BrentAllen]

Sure, dual-registered. ASM for the troop, VA for Crew. Read back through the posts, it is very clear.

[Stosh]

Must be something in the water.

 

First of all I never said people were doing anything "wrong". I merely congratulated Scoutmomma on being able to accept the challenge of major growth in a program by doubling twice in a short period of time. I thought it was a good thing that in spite of the situation, they opened up, expanded their program and made room for a lot of boys that could have been turned away at the door had she decided getting too big was a bad thing. I stand by my comments to her and applaud her for not limiting her vision and rolling up her sleeves and accomplishing a good thing.

 

Stosh

[Stosh]

I have attempted to be polite in spite of the accusations that certain individuals have laid out on the forum. I have been accused of lying and probably a half dozen other infractions of the Scout Laws. For those who find it necessary to go back into the various posts and dig out "contradictory" posting information, let's set the record straight. By the way, my "constradictory" posts only support the situation.

 

I have been dual registered both in Scouting and in Venturing for the past 9 years. I used to be an ASM of an adult-led unit, but am now a SM of a boy-led unit. Having walked in multiple shoes it gives a person multiple perspectives on issues. If my sharing them with the forum causes a person to be bothered, feel free to just skip over them.

 

If there are those who must insist on calling other scouters liars because they haven't understood something, it is an unfortunate circumstance. There really isn't much one can do to change the character and personalities of others, and like I tell my boys, name-calling doesn't make it so.

 

Over the years I have experimented with a variety of different approaches to situations in life and learned that some work and some don't. Just because something was tried and it didn't work and one moves on to something else a wee-bit wiser and they change their mind, doesn't make them a liar. Many people change their minds once they have walked through the situation and learned.

 

I have also found out that assuming the worst about other people will allow one to always find it. But I have also found that assuming the best about other people works the same way.

 

SM Minute: "Big people talk about ideas, average people talk about things, small people talk about other people." Your mileage may vary.

 

Stosh

 

 

[Beavah]

Yah, jblake, thanks for your patience, eh? I apologize on behalf of my fellow scouters for any discourtesy. I hope and expect it was unintended.

 

I didn't want to let da troop size discussion go completely, without givin' yeh a few more things to think about. I admire your enthusiasm, and feel you should pursue a large troop size with your new unit if that's how you think you can best serve kids. I think your theory of troop operation in that way is just fine, even exciting.

 

As you do that, though, I'd encourage yeh to keep an eye out. Just because what I and other folks are telling you is that while the theory can be great, there are real sticking points in practice. Here's a list of a few:

 

* Few places to camp. Large groups are not LNT-compatible.

* As you've suggested, very large troops split into program sub-groups, by patrol or (what happens more commonly) by New Scouts/Gr 7-8 Scouts/Venture aged scouts.

* This requires a lot of adults, to support the many patrol outings and the different program levels.

* It is very difficult to find that many adults who share both your vision and the necessary skills. And it takes hands-on time to really train 'em.

* The age-stratified program division leaves the lower two groups without a lot of youth leadership skill, or contact with the best youth leaders (the older boys).

* The venture patrols tend to attract adults who are more comfortable with youth leadership, leaving the younger guys who have weaker leadership skills with adults who want to impose more structure.

* For coordination, you need a host of ASPLs and support adults to serve in "middle-manager" type roles.

* Because the SM feels a bit "remote", even a great Patrol Method/youth leadership advocate starts to "push" from top down through the middle-managers.

* To run a troop this size also requires a huge, well-coordinated adult support staff, lots of fundraising, etc.

* If yeh have a large adult support staff, yeh sorta need a fairly homogeneous and agreeable community. Otherwise, you'll get all kinds of adult conflicts to manage.

* 90% of the SM's time moves to dealing with other adults, with a small sliver for working with the SPL and giving SM minutes. Yeh gotta want that kind of role. Most SM's for smaller units want more kid-contact time.

 

With a large troop, you typically end up with a very "school curriculum" FCFY program, and a very "directed" leadership style for the grade 7-8-9 guys. Very much like what BW describes, eh, because that's what works. But that's not what you were shootin' for.

 

Alternately, at some point yeh don't take a necessary step, like yeh don't start creatin' middle managers or the SM keeps tryin' to stay more involved with kid contact. In that case, your growth plateaus and you start losin' kids who become disconnected or "fall through the cracks" because the troop is too big to be within the span of control of a single SM / youth leadership team. So you might be accepting a lot of kids, but you're not doin' right by 'em.

 

Just my observations. Not tryin' to rain on your parade, by all means, go for it! But yeh now have a whole mess of folks warnin' you about the same pitfalls, so you're goin' into it with eyes wide open.

 

B

 

[Stosh]

Beavah, you do point out a lot of room for discussion and to assure those I'm not ducking a question, I'll address them.

 

* Few places to camp. Large groups are not LNT-compatible.

 

While this is true, it opens the door for some creative thinking on the part of the troop. With the huge variety of opportunities facing youth today, why does taking 60-100 boys all to the same place at the same time make sense in the first place? Scout camp for example: younger boys do the traditional stay in camp, do the FC training, get their feet wet, do a couple of MB's and have fun. The VP's will hook up with the high adventure opportunities, or maybe even have worked out Philmont so 2-3 patrols are off doing their thing in NM. 5 other patrols couldn't make it that week, so they have picked a different week to go to camp. The question I'm left with is: "How does every patrol doing their own thing, meeting the needs of their members of different skills, ages and interests have anymore negative affect on the troop than all the different dens doing their own thing have a negative affect on the pack?" If, for example, one DOES want everyone in the same place at the same time for a mega event, it would be at a camporee type activity where arrangements are made to handle a large number of boys in a single place anyway. This shouldn't be any different than say a Cub Day Camp experience that runs for a couple of days. There might be some equipment shortages on those occasional activities, but it might offer a good training opportunity for leadership problem-solving for the patrols.

 

* As you've suggested, very large troops split into program sub-groups, by patrol or (what happens more commonly) by New Scouts/Gr 7-8 Scouts/Venture aged scouts.

 

This is something that small troops cannot do. The smaller the troop the more it relies on one-size fits-all. We ALL do this or that and we do it together because we need the numbers. The larger troops can offer a wider variety of opportunities for a wider variety of ages, interests and skills. As I mentioned before patrol 1 does the map & compass thingy, while patrol 2 is out doing their 5-10 mile hike-bike, and the VP are off doing geocacheing activity.

 

* This requires a lot of adults, to support the many patrol outings and the different program levels.

 

Two deep leadership. 1 trained ASM and one chaperone per young patrol. No adults required for VP doing their geocacheing thingy. It may require a lot of adults, but if it's boy-led, it may not need as many as some people might think.

 

* It is very difficult to find that many adults who share both your vision and the necessary skills. And it takes hands-on time to really train 'em.

 

Depends on who is the SM and CC. If they are on the same page, the other leadership can be trained to understand how the dynamics play out in the troop and once the program is in place, the personalities of the players becomes irrelevent. You are correct in assuming a heavy responsibility on the part of adults to really train leadership in the boys... but then isn't that the reason we're adults in the program in the first place?

 

* The age-stratified program division leaves the lower two groups without a lot of youth leadership skill, or contact with the best youth leaders (the older boys).

 

I would never think to assume that the younger boys would be totally separated from the older boys. Assume for a moment that the NSP was doing the TF Requirement #1 on packing your gear for an outing. Which group would the boys prefer to learn from. An adult who's read the book and brings in their pack and demonstrates the right way to do it, or the VP that has just gotten back from Philmont and will do the same thing but also let the NSP know about all the fun they had in NM? When one has a patrol-method troop it does not mean the patrols are isolated, just independent. Through the PLC the VP PL makes his resources available to any of the other 20 patrols, the skills, interesting things they are doing. Maybe a VP patrol will take a mid-range patrol out on their first expedition to the BWCA. Or maybe a mid-ange patrol will help a NSP with their knots and lashings. These older patrols are the resources that help make the NSP realize that in just a couple of years they will be where these boys are.

 

* The venture patrols tend to attract adults who are more comfortable with youth leadership, leaving the younger guys who have weaker leadership skills with adults who want to impose more structure.

 

The SM needs to do more with leadership training of his ADULTS as well as his boys. It is critical for the NSP's to become independent and confident in their skills as quickly as possible. The best leaders need to be put with the younger boys. Once they have the ball rolling for these patrols, then the adults who have lesser skills can monitor the boys without having to do as much actual training.

 

* For coordination, you need a host of ASPLs and support adults to serve in "middle-manager" type roles.

 

Correct. This is the first level of support for the patrols. When I asked a boy to consider being a TG for our growing troop, I worded it such that he realized he would be taking a step DOWN from PL to be TG. I told him I needed a TG that would work to support, assist, and meet the needs of the 2-3 NSP's that we anticipate this winter. He wouldn't be top-dog anymore. He accepted in a heart-beat.

 

Because no one should lead more than 7-8 other people, each ASPL can have as many as 8 PL's he monitors for assistance. 20 patrols of 8 boys (160 boys) would need at least 3 ASPL's. Couple that with QM, TG, Instructor, Chaplain Aid and two more POR boys, that's about all the SPL can handle. His PLC would have about 30 boys, but only 8 which would work directly with the SPL, each ASPL would have 6-8 PL's working with him. The DC's back in the feeder packs would also be loosely associated with the SPL relaying information on the prospects and future needs of the troop when they bring their dens into the troop.

 

* Because the SM feels a bit "remote", even a great Patrol Method/youth leadership advocate starts to "push" from top down through the middle-managers.

 

It depends a lot on the personality of the SM. if he/she is confident in the leaders he/she has trained, trusts them to stay on task and function as they should, he/she will actually have more freedom to move amongst the patrols, getting to know the boys, doing SM conf's and actually enjoying the boys company.

 

* To run a troop this size also requires a huge, well-coordinated adult support staff, lots of fundraising, etc.

 

:^) It's tempting to keep throwing in all these adults. There's nothing in the BSA program that says the QM, working in conjunction with the Committee Treasurer can't have a working "staff" of his own. Suppose the QM has 3-5 boys who are "in training" for the QM position that help coordinate equipment, identify equipment needs, and plan and organize fundraisers to pay for them. Other than the Treasurer, who does one really need? If the QM has need of advice, he has his SPL and SM. If that's not enough the SM might assign an ASM to support the QM. We're not talking a boatload of people necessary to do assistance work.

 

* If yeh have a large adult support staff, yeh sorta need a fairly homogeneous and agreeable community. Otherwise, you'll get all kinds of adult conflicts to manage.

 

Only if people quit doing what they're supposed to do and start muddling in someone else's concerns. If all I have to do is help the TG and the NSP work on leadership development and I start messing with whether or not we have enough Dutch ovens for the boy's to do their advancement, will I bump into a place I don't need to be. If we need Dutch ovens for the NSP, the PL relays his needs to the QM at the next PLC who will work on a solution to the patrol's problem. No adult need get in and mess with the system.

 

* 90% of the SM's time moves to dealing with other adults, with a small sliver for working with the SPL and giving SM minutes. Yeh gotta want that kind of role. Most SM's for smaller units want more kid-contact time.

 

If the SM is spending 90% of his time working with the adults, he's probably wasting and about 90% of his time on things the committee is responsible for. The SM should be working on boy-led leadership, boy-led training, and boy-led opportunities. If he's with the adults he hasn't time for that. If Adult A is recommended by the committee and approved by the SM to be ASM-Advancment, and Adult A starts telling the QM how to do his job, then the COMMITTEE needs to address the issue, not the SM. His job is to work with the kids NOT the adults.

 

With a large troop, you typically end up with a very "school curriculum" FCFY program,

 

If the SM teaches the boys that there is only one "correct" way to do the program, yes, one may end up with this type of FCFY program. Maybe the SM should be taking the individual's style of leadership into consideration and not just "stamping" out the same size fits all leaders. If that's a problem, teach alternative approaches to the program, let the boys have the freedom to find their own groove of leadership. Not every patrol has to do it exactly the same way and boys should be encouraged to make the best use of the resources for their particular boys. That's a PL call.

 

and a very "directed" leadership style for the grade 7-8-9 guys.

 

This should be a time, after the training to allow the boys to try out their "wings". This time is critical for mentoring, and supporting the boys. If the process is directed leadership, the boys will have the knowledge for leadership but never an opportunity to do any real hands-on leadership. One must be particulary careful at this point to trust the boys' opportunity to lead. If this is not happening, it's not the boy's fault, but the adult's fault and the committee needs to address it. These are the years that if no real opportunity for leadership is allowed, the boys will become frustrated and leave.

 

Very much like what BW describes, eh, because that's what works. But that's not what you were shootin' for.

 

Alternately, at some point yeh don't take a necessary step, like yeh don't start creatin' middle managers or the SM keeps tryin' to stay more involved with kid contact. In that case, your growth plateaus and you start losin' kids who become disconnected or "fall through the cracks" because the troop is too big to be within the span of control of a single SM / youth leadership team. So you might be accepting a lot of kids, but you're not doin' right by 'em.

 

If the SM/youth leadership team has done their "job" correctly there should be an over-abundance of qualified youth leaders to handle that many more boys. Let's just say out of 150 boys, the troop has anyone of 75 older boys that can easily take on a PL job and function as well as any adult in leading a patrol. With 20 patrols, that means 20 boys are currently functioning as PL's and another APL's are waiting in the wings learning. That's 40 right there. Add to that any number of boys that had been PL's at one time or another. Or maybe 10 of them that could easily do the QM job. Or maybe 10 candidates with 3-4 years experience as a successful PL that would do well in the SPL position? Or the TG after 3-4 years decides to go back into the Pack and do a knockout job as DC? As far as falling through the cracks. The PL has 7 boys to worry about. In 5 minutes a week he can may contact with the boys to make sure he's ready for the troop/patrol meeting. If a boy becomes disinterested in scouting, the PL should be the first to know and if the PL and APL can't handle the problem, it's time to call in the ASPL to help out. If every group of 7 boys is watched like that, falling through the cracks is not an option.

 

Just my observations. Not tryin' to rain on your parade, by all means, go for it! But yeh now have a whole mess of folks warnin' you about the same pitfalls, so you're goin' into it with eyes wide open.

 

Yeah, I just approached my DE this afternoon asking him what the ramifications would be if I took my Venturing Crew nation-wide. I'll settle for the 4 state area, but I'm hoping for the moon at this point. I have heard tell of way too many young people getting turned away and our committee has come up with some new ways to look at the problem that may indeed work out. We just need National's approval because we have already gone beyond our district, council and even regional boundaries with our membership. My DE seemed very please with the proposal and has promised to get back to me this week.

 

One doesn't have to be crazy to do this job, but it does help.

 

Stosh