Supporting growth - ideas from the UK

See:

http://www.scouts.org.uk/ccblog/158/supporting-growth

and

http://www.scouts.org.uk/ccblog/159/sup ... -an-update


Allan.

Allan, I found this quote (one of the first posts) on your first link really spot-on for Scouts Canada:

Very interesting fact; our Unit has a good transfer rate from the 4 feeder Troops, although we do also attract had members from "outside". I don't know what it is that we do to achieve this, but we do maintain close links with the Troops. I drop in often (even if its just to return or collect kit), and having Young Leaders active in the Troops must also help. We also join in with Troop activities at certain specific events during the year, a camp, a 2 day sponsored hike and so on. But being fed by 4 Troops in 3 towns/villages we fiercely maintain our independance from the main Group in the area - so that our Unit isn't seen as part of it by those in the village Groups.
Get me a few more Leaders to help run the Unit programme week-by-week and I can build even stronger links with the feeder Troops!
We must recognise that age 14 is often a challenging time for our young people. They are starting think about GCSE courses, they might be beginning to specialise in one or two specific sports or activities (possibly things they first tried in Scouting) so free time is valuable. And of course there are those who would perhaps choose to leave during the Scout age range, but who's parents insist they stick at it until the change of Section. Flexibility is the key here, especially with regard to the moving on age. The rules allow it - use it! Let them move when they are ready, not when it suits the Section leaders! (I've lost count of the number of times Scout Leaders have accused me of "stealing" their patrol Leaders!!) We have to put the young people first in the moving on process, probably with more sensitivity at this age than any other. But believe in them, trust their descisions (so long as they are properly informed) - after all, that's what we trying to teach them!

Linking, linking, linking, along with good programming, is the key to retention. We need Keeos in Colony, Kims in Pack, and ALs and SITs in Troop, Pack and Colony. Company (Explorers to the Brits) advisors need to be popping into Troop meetings regularly, and Troop leaders need to pop into their feeder Packs. The sections need to do several linking activities, not just one or two. In our group, we have great retention from Colony to Pack, but it drops drastically at Troop, and we don't even have a Company. We likely lose some Scouts earlier because they see nothing ahead for them. Being sensitive to our kids' needs, rather than rigid planning or adherence to hide-bound traditions, must be the priority.

His comments about moving kids up when they are ready to move is really important. I had a number of white tails that we really should have moved to Cubs in January/February, but we encountered some parental and official opposition ("they really should finish their year in Colony..."). We lost three before we even had our year-end swim-up, and I know they would have enjoyed Cubs. Our sections need to operate as members of the same family, not cousins, gathering for meals instead of just special occasions (forgive the ham-handed metaphor). The silo effect must be destroyed, somehow, so that retention gets better.

I agree with you wholeheartedly Angus! Especially on when to move up! Sometimes it works both ways. I've had youth that are really not ready to move up to cubs and have happily had an extra beaver year then stayed in the entire program thus far.

The best retention idea a beaver colony I volunteered with did was to have each older section come to one beaver meeting a year and run the entire thing. It was great for the older youth- something fun that could contribute to service hours, and for our beavers they were some of their favorite nights! The older kids are naturally the "cooler" ones, getting to hang out with them was something special.

In that night there was always a beaver length presentation from the section on what their section was and the things they liked about it. They also took questions from the beavers.

After these evenings there was clear genuine excitement from our beavers about moving up! That's the feeling we need to ensure we don't lose youth between sections.

This is key:

our Unit has a good transfer rate from the 4 feeder Troops

There are about one-quarter the number of Explorers (ages 14-17) as Scouts, so it follows that there should be one-quarter the number of units. Too many units means each is too small to be vibrant.

In Scouts Canada, the primacy given to the group encourages each group to have as many sections as they can offer, even if they are too small to be vibrant. There are about half the number Scouts as there are Wolf Cubs, so it follows that there would be half the number of troops as there are packs, but in reality, many troops are too small. Groups without a troop feel that this is a deficiency and they work to start a troop even if it will be small and weak. Their graduating Wolf Cubs would be better linking with an existing strong troop.

In the BSA, charters are not given to groups but to sections, Pack, Troop, or Crew. Multiple younger sections feed a single older section, leading to larger and more vibrant sections. Last week at our troop summer camp in New York State, I was speaking with a Scouter who has 23 Venturers in their unit. At that size, the high adventure outdoor activities they get up to are phenomenal. This is not unusual down there.

Liam:

Your post raises a very important point: vibrancy. In my Group, we have a huge Colony (about to split in two, I think), two growing Packs, and a struggling Troop. We don't have a Company. This in in a small city with surrounding townships totaling about 30,000 population. Our packs have really started to grow again, which hopefully bodes well for the Troop. With some new dedicated volunteers and a growth plan, I think our Troop would grow nicely, which could lead to the start of a vibrant Company.

However, we shouldn't re-invent the wheel. We have a neighbouring group that has an awesome Company of about 15 Venturers, coupled with a Crew of 7 or 8 Rovers (in a town half the size of our Group's). This is where our Scouts go if they choose to move on. Were we to start a Company, it should be distinguished by its character, so that the youth have a choice. So a MedVents or a Sea Venturers Company would be more appropriate. Sea Venturers would be a natural fit for our city (Brockville) which is at the eastern end of the Thousand Islands, and has natural partners like the Brockville Yacht Club, 1000 Islands Kayak Club, and dozens of marinas, not to mention the large community of boaters that supports these clubs and businesses. Also, it would give Scouting youth a choice between land venturing and sea venturing. I have always been attracted by the idea of MedVents, which is a perfect fit for teens who want to pursue an EMS or medical/nursing career.

Having charters given to sections might work, but the British model is that Explorers are set up at the District (our Area) level, not the Group level, and it appears this has led to considerable growth of the Explorer program (albeit not so much from retained Scouts) and that might deserve some thought on our part: having Companies under the aegis of the AC, instead of a GC. However, British districts are much more densely populated than our Areas, so it may not be workable in Canada, especially the more rural Areas like mine.

I agree with you wholeheartedly Angus! Especially on when to move up! Sometimes it works both ways. I've had youth that are really not ready to move up to cubs and have happily had an extra beaver year then stayed in the entire program thus far.

The best retention idea a beaver colony I volunteered with did was to have each older section come to one beaver meeting a year and run the entire thing. It was great for the older youth- something fun that could contribute to service hours, and for our beavers they were some of their favorite nights! The older kids are naturally the "cooler" ones, getting to hang out with them was something special.

In that night there was always a beaver length presentation from the section on what their section was and the things they liked about it. They also took questions from the beavers.

After these evenings there was clear genuine excitement from our beavers about moving up! That's the feeling we need to ensure we don't lose youth between sections.

Those are great ideas, Kaylee! We have held Cubs back from Scouts for a year before, which has worked well, but I haven't seen it done yet in Beavers, as our white tails are soooooo ready to move on! I really liked the idea of having older sections come and visit, and run the meeting. Not only do the Beavers get excited about their future in Scouting, the Cubs and Scouts undoubtedly get some badge requirements satisfied. I will propose that at our upcoming GC planning meeting. Thanks for the idea.

To my way of thinking, it makes a lot of sense to have one or two very strong and vibrant Venturer Companies than numerous ones that are struggling to strive. It is not very exciting for the youth to be meeting with just two or three youth. It is hard to get the momentum going. I wholeheartedly think that there should be a change to the Venturer Company set up or registration process to allow this to happen. It is called putting the youth first. When I was in Guiding as as youth and it was time to go up to Rangers, we were told where the group was meeting and we joined in with them. Not every youth will want to go up to Venturers but for those that do, we must put the youth first and have them join together.

I had a number of white tails that we really should have moved to Cubs in January/February, but we encountered some parental and official opposition ("they really should finish their year in Colony..."). We lost three before we even had our year-end swim-up

I think Beaver burnout is a common syndrome. The program can be aimed at too young an age. In the past we have moved some Beavers up to Cubs a full year early. In other cases, Cubs have stayed on extra time before moving up to Scouts. In both cases these were girls; they said they wanted to stay in Cubs, but after half the year they asked to go up to Scouts and were sent up then.

Linking, linking, linking, along with good programming, is the key to retention

Absolutely agree. In days past we used to invite the white tail Beavers to our two spring Cubs camps; signed, sealed, and delivered that they would then want to continue up to Cubs. Third year Cubs used to be invited to a Scout spring camp; again instrumental in keeping them in Scouts. For Venturers, we invite the third year Scouts to our spring whitewater canoe courses (though this year the Scout leaders wanted to keep the kids in Scouts for an extra year, repiortedly to work on the chief scout award, so no linking happened). We also have done a slideshow to all the Scouts of the Venturers activities. A slideshow at a group banquet is also good for showing a section what the next section does (good too for attracting leaders).

Groups without a troop feel that this is a deficiency and they work to start a troop even if it will be small and weak.

I certainly agree that small sections cannot offer anything to the kids compared to a good sized section. I remember Cub packs with three kids, and wondering how they could ever offer a decent evening, let alone an exciting camp. So I agree that growth of existing sections is prefered over the establishment of new ones. But just as it can be daunting for some kids to make new friends, so can it be for leaders to move from group to group. However, this overall practice doesn't work as well in rural areas where a longer drive would be required if a given section does not exist in a given village; many parents aren't will to do the extra driving. In those cases, small local sections need to be encouraged to get together for many area/council events over the course of the year; this works better for Venturers than younger sections.

the British model is that Explorers are set up at the District (our Area) level, not the Group level, and it appears this has led to considerable growth of the Explorer program

If you follow the UK Scout forums, you will find that this move of Explorers/Venturers to the district/area level is not without contreversy. I would argue that many of the successfull Explorer groups are actually those that operate in reality as a section of an existing group. i.e. They are area level in spirit only. I don't think that move has anything to do with their growth. The entire Scouting program has been growing in the UK, though they are still limited (as we are) by the number of adults they can get involved. I myself haven't been able to pin point their reasons for growth. Obviously the groups are offering great programs, and the adults are putting in an immense amount of effort. But why do their adults do so well and ours don't? I do postulate that their average leader age is much lower than ours, and they appear to have a strong Young Leader program.

Were we to start a Company, it should be distinguished by its character, so that the youth have a choice.

Brilliant idea!

I have always been attracted by the idea of MedVents

While MedVents is a great program, IMHO it is not Venturers. I like you Sea Venturer idea much better.

especially the more rural Areas like mine

I live just north of you in Merrickville. I wouldn't consider Brockville rural. Population of 30,000 vs 1,000. And even we are much larger than some villages where Scouting is trying to work.


Allan