Add to that burnout the difficulty of finding adults who are still involved who don't treat the scouting like it's their absolute last priority.  My younger son is done.  He indicated he wasn't really interested in scouts about 18 months ago, but seeing what his brother has gone through in that same time period (and experiencing some of it himself) he doesn't feel like any fun or value he's still getting out of it are worth the aggravation. Key examples: merit badge counselors who take weeks to respond, then can't find time to meet the scout once they finally answer, scoutmasters and assistant scoutmasters who haven't provided scouts a solid base or training but expect scouts to be able to lead the troop by themselves because 'scouting is youth led', and scout executives - no details needed. Our Troop has grown, which is fantastic.  With that said, a few of the new scouts are there to make Eagle only.  They (and their parents) are already eyeballing the 20 nights of camping for the Camping Merit Badge as the maximum rather than the minimum.  They want to know how much time it will take for their scout to reach 'X' rank.  The adults are not interested in volunteering to help run the Troop.  This may have always been the case, but it makes it appear as though the entire outdoor part of scouting isn't appealing to a lot of people anymore.

An enjoyable Sunday morning read. "Tents cover the Oxford County Fairgrounds in June 1949 in Paris for the historic Boy Scout Jamboree, the largest camp gathering in New England at the time. More than 3,000 Scouts from 11 counties participated, with 125 groups from southern Maine. The site is now the location of Oxford Hills Comprehensive High School on Main Street.. "One motivated and energetic group from Pownal, led by Scoutmaster David Whittemore, hiked 38 miles of roadways over two days, starting at the Pownal School and staying over in Hebron, before arriving at the fairgrounds." More  including photos at source: https://www.pressherald.com/2024/06/09/largest-boy-scout-jamboree-in-new-england-camped-in-paris-75-years-ago/

I apologize, it isn't an easy distinction to make and most dismiss my distinction as a difference in rhetoric but it is much more than that in practice.  The distinction is between focus on people vs system. Notice your response was focused solely on people; how many, etc... Because people come and go, and this is especially true when the number is limited, this focus rarley is successful. And as you point out, people are complicated.  I advocate a focus on the organization itself, the processes which are utilized, and the decisions which are made. All of the decisions, processes, procedures are based on the development of future leaders of the organization. From the moment of introduction to onboarding and so forth. The entire purpose is to develop future leaders. This removes the search for the person and instead makes all people the potential future leaders. I know it does not seem like a difference, but it really is. One  measure of the difference is whether people willingly step down from a position in order to create the vacuum for the next person to serve. This will permeate within the organization at all levels.  I suppose I can phrase the distinction in the form of a question, Are individuals looking for their successor, or does the organization create them by design?

I'm not really following the distinction you see, or how it works in practice. In our small troop, most willing adults have several troop jobs and there are only a few other adult prospects who are not interested or willing. The result is that there are virtually NO prospects to be one's replacement let alone that replacement's replacement.  The concept of "two deep replacementship" requires 3 willing and capable adults for each unit position. That just has never happened. I would prefer a "farm system" where the holder of a position has two successors in the wings. The senior replacement handling a little heavier duties than the junior replacement.  Each easing into greater responsibility and "learning the ropes" as they go, but alas, we've never had sufficient adults to implement such a system. We have never had that luxury at our troop. Even at district level (where I was District Chairperson and where more adults are active), I had no luck.  Rarely, did individuals just step up and volunteer. And, the source of a prospective pool of replacements largely depends on the number of crossover cubs (or the occasional youth joining a troop outside the crossover process). One year, we had 2 or 3 more adults attend troop meetings than scouts (counting adults whose scout had aged out). Yet, several adults who attended every meeting made no effort, nor indicated any interest helping out, and resisted every suggestion of need. Then one of those reluctant adults suddenly took on several major aspects of the program and did a fine job. (Yeah, and I have no reason why). People are complicated.  

Yep. The finding one's successor is the problem I identified years ago in so many organizations. This doesn't work. It focuses on finding a person. Instead I believe it is better and more effective to focus on one's replacement's replacement. This requires focusing on the system instead of an individual. People come and go, which is why the "find one's successor" most often fails in the long term. It does not sustain itself, it has a single point of failure. When the focus is on creating a system by which leaders are nurtured, recruited and supported then the system itself generates successors. By focusing on my replacemen't replacement... a person i will never meet, it requires I create and nurture a sytem of leadership development to ... find my replacement's replacement.