Jameson76

Would like to know Year over Year for Georgia and also Atlanta Area Council

I do wonder what the "Actual" BSA National Numbers are at this point. Nobody really knows. Nobody knows where to get the information. Most people have stopped asking. Main success is judged by funds raised. Most of our council staff is focused on getting cash, to support all the staff that is raising cash. In our district we have and continue to lose troops and packs, but not sure there is any effort to save any of them or figure a way to stem the tide. We have not witnessed an actual DE or other council staff in the wild in forever. It's not that we have a bad relationship, that would infer our units actually knew who they were, we literally have no relationship. There are maybe 20 units in the district (though I think less) and one would assume they may come by annually to see what's up. In the end BSA (sorry SA) will likely not end with a bang, it will just not be around the professionals that were supposed to be the managers and provide vision will go raise money elsewhere.

Still show 234 councils, which means about 4,200 youth participants per council. The excessive overhead costs continue. Assuming a SE costs $200K (all in salary and benefits) that means each youth registered pays +/- $48 just for the SE overhead.

On the hoped for increased membership related to girls join. First on girls joining troops and cubs, not my cup of tea, but if folks want to pursue it fine, but let's be honest about the background. BSA (at the time) had Coed options; Explorers and Ventures, neither of which was overly successful and honestly BSA had no idea what to really do with the programs. The REAL challenge to the BSA was continuing decline in membership in 2016 - 2018. If you actually list to Surbaugh's town hall interview (as the announcement on adding girls was made) he basically says that adding girls to packs and troops was the only idea they had left. The brain trust had no other real ideas or had done no real examination of how to grow, so hey, let's add girls. This was not really to provide diverse opportunities, not to serve an underserved group, not to right some perhaps wrong, no, BSA basically (to quote Animal House) needed the dues. Now as this has evolved, many reasons have been developed and applied on why BSA (now SA) did this, but the base reason is this is the only way they felt they could stem the drop in membership. And that is the real deep issue, they (BSA professionals, National Board, regional teams, et al) have never really fully defined the WHY in the drop in membership, they have never truly delved deep and gotten into the reason. Basically an echo chamber of potential ideas that may work have been bandied about (Scout Me In??). This has been ongoing from Improved Scouting Program in the 70's (it wasn't) to the current expansion of classroom focused activities. What did set BSA (now SA) apart is the camping and outdoors, getting youth out of their comfort zones, and really becoming unique in the crowded market place of youth activities. Sadly SA is not that group and the activities they want to focus on or move towards (safer and less of the messy outdoor stuff) are just like so many other groups provide and a lot of those have waaay less overhead. Adding girls to the rosters will likely not stem the decline as National and the high level volunteer groups NEVER defined the WHY for the decline. If one cannot define the problem, they can never solved the problem.

Family Troop. That's a real selling point for the 11 - 17 years olds

We had a troop near us that folded and we rolled their Scouts into our troop. Their SM became one of our ASMs. Honestly the only interaction or feedback from the council was an inquiry about the Troop treasury / funds. That inquiry was ignored, funds went to the CO

Our successes are almost all unit based, and seldom noted by Council, unless they find issue a way to monetize that success. Fixed it for you

Professional scouters that have clearly set goals that focus on raising money (for what nobody knows) rather than focusing on actually growing the program A National Organization that continues to believe the infrastructure needs to be reflective of the 70's (almost 5 million) rather than today (less than 1 million). Get rid of councils and overhead.

We do an aquatics outing at a large lake near us. Have boats come in for tubing, rent canoes from the camp. After camping fees (out of council camp), rental fees, and boat gas reimbursement, it can be close to $45 - $50. None of the leaders ask for gas money etc, but the outings can get costly when you pay state park fees, maybe an outfitter, maybe some admissions, and other costs

Councils - Absolutely too many councils, too much overhead. As long as they keep raising money on the nostalgic memory of BSA, they will survive I guess Properties - My understanding is (2024 I believe) for summer, if you took all the BSA properties, totaled up all the available slots in the camp (for example a camp is open 5 weeks and capacity is 250 per week, available slots are 1,250), the overall usage was maybe 30%. That means there is a lot of unused capacity. Data shows top 3 property attendance Philmont Seabase Woodruff (Blairsville, GA) SA (formerly BSA) clearly needs to resize and figure out how to efficiently deliver program, how far will units travel, how many weeks can they operate, what can they do to fully utilize the property. If one were to combine councils the properties could be passed to other groups (State / County / City parks for example) and the maintenance and sunk costs could be eliminated.

Any time membership drop is discussed there are always qualifiers; well it was this, it was that, it was letting females in, it was not letting females in soon enough, it was the Mormon Church leaving, it was letting in 5 year old Lions, it was COVID, Scouting cost too much. it's the way too long Cub program, it was the bankruptcy, we need to wait for this date to normalize, the new registration system messed up stuff, etc etc. All very good assumptions, but an best anecdotal. There are no facts and no real understanding of why membership continues to drop. There are never any facts (from districts / councils / national / executive board) to support and figure a path forward. What SA (formerly BSA) is NOT doing is root cause analysis; for youth leaving / not joining OR for successful units. Where are the actual exit interviews, where is the research, who is benchmarking successful units with floundering units. Yes there is universal leader / volunteer training but what works and what doesn't? IMHO National and Councils are mainly looking at dollars raised. I got a survey recently about my perception (attitude??) about Scouting America. In summary it was mainly about donations and financially supporting Scouting. In my council there is no emphasis on adding members. DE's focus on raising funds, so the council can hire staff to raise money. All events are monetized. Goal of Scouts is to raise money, that is the bar. Until the BSA comes to really understand underlying issues, what needs and perceptions are not being met, and what needs to be changed, nothing will change. Bottom line, 815,000 youth in 230 (or so) councils means 3,500 youth per council. If a Council Executive (average) pay is $200K (all in) that means just for the local CE there is a burden of $57 per member. Data suggest 3,100 or so SA employees, so that may indicate (with benefits) just labor overhead burden of +/- $190,000,000 or $233 PER YOUTH member. That is before any other overhead costs such as IT, liability insurance. SA (formerly BSA) needs to reduce the costs, focus on growth, and get rid of what doesn't add value.

Some membership information (and membership figures are rarely provided) National SA (formerly BSA) youth membership stood at 814,950 at the end of August 2025, down 6.35 percent from 870,177 in August 2024. This was from a summary of the CST (Council Service Territory) roll-up numbers Has National office actually published any membership information recently?

Interesting perspective - A 115-year-old leadership development organization I have never considered the BSA a leadership development organization. Sure, there are chances to learn experience leadership, as there are opportunities to experience camping, nature study, swimming, cooking, archery, etc etc Scouting should be about helping youth realize THEY can actually do things, they can be in charge of who they are, they don't need permission to succeed. In more current lingo we teach youth to adult. No 11 year old wants to join a leadership organization. Now might they be interested in a group that does activities and adventures that is run by the youth, more likely

Our troop uses these, about $30. EVERYTHING needs to fit in the trunk. They show up for camp with a trunk and a daypack for the trip to camp. Helps with packing and moving goods to site. Can be used in tents (camp has the 2 person platform tents), keeps things dry if they actually close it, can be a table a seat, etc.

So range activities seem to be back on as of Thursday late evening maybe. No additional training, no updates issued, just the local SE signing a document that their range follows all the known rules. No changes to the rules, just swearing they follow them. One would think that maybe now outside groups could not use the BSA facilities, but, there is money to be gained from that, soooo Basically corporate CYA, or as some in industry may call it "Safety Theatre".

Some new background on this, and apparently this is not 100% just related to shooting sports, though that is what is impacted right now. From what I understand this concept of the "Stand down" is a BSA National initiative. If there is an aquatics incident in some state at BSA camps / property, ALL aquatics in all camps will stand down for a few days. If there is a mountain bike incident, ALL mountain biking will stand down for a few days. Rinse, lather, repeat. No information of actual process for what additional training or actions will be taken in a stand down, how long a stand down will be, or what will trigger the lifting of a stand down. This is somehow related to new insurance policy and coming out of bankruptcy. As we can all see a good bit of confusion. As a side note for camps that have staff in camp school RIGHT NOW for training, they are basically out of luck. Just sitting around and talking, no range time or any or the actual nuts and bolts as the range is effectively closed.

That is an optimistic view. This seems to be the "Never let a crisis go unused" strategy for some to achieve a goal of ending shooting sports. BSA does nothing fast, the Memorial Day weekend will extend the decision timelines and there are large camps that start staff week on Sunday with week 1 for them starting 6/1/2025. There are staff hired to run the ranges, councils have invested in arrows, ammunition, clays, etc. In reality the timeline is maybe 5 to 7 days to "review".

Seems a bit of an over reaction. Maybe be specific to standing down non-scout groups. There is a constituency within and outside BSA that has been gunning (pun intended) to limit or close target activities for many years. Maybe this was their excuse

DE's are mainly responsible for fund raising. Keep the cash flowing, membership may be nice but not essential to the DE's performance. FOS, Camp Cards, Popcorn sells, etc. Little to no interaction or direction for units these days. In our council, more than 1/2 the paid staff is there for money raising. Second highest paid staffer in the council is "development" or money raising.

Agree. In the feeder pack for every 12 kids that join as Lions and Tigers (oh my!!) maybe 3 or 4 make it to AOL and potentially crossover. Then they have had 5 + years of Cubs so the expectation is Scouts will be like Cubs, which it isn't, so there is a high dropout rate. Also many assume Scouts is like Cubs so they never make it to AOL, tired of the repetitive cub program. Also families may assume Scouts is like cubs and expect the hand holding, social promotion, and family camping. Imbalance of expectations and reality

In many ways you are experiencing disinterest that may not be of your own making. Scouting has experienced a decline over the last 45 years. Slowly the passing down of Scouting from one generation to the next has grown smaller. Less parents were involved as kids so they do not migrate towards having their kids in Scouting. Basically a smaller population that thinks favorably of the program. Many have some esoteric view or opinion, but not actual experience. Additionally the overall Scouting program in the US has moved more towards the experience of Scouting and less on growing Scouts, easier to leave the program. In many cases units are seen as just more school. For Scouts (11-19) for summer of 2024 if you took all the camps, all the weeks, and all the availability, nationally the camps were at 30% capacity. A small handful were full, but most had lots of empty space. There may be youth registered, but not a high level of engagement. Long term I'm not sure of the fix. In many cases key will be to make the program relevant and work to be clear on what the program is about and what the positive outcomes can be. We too had 80 Scouts 9 years ago, not so much now and we are in the 20's. Also the expectations of families have changed. We camp 11 - 12 times a year, many kids and their families are not supportive of a robust outdoor program. Possibly meeting in the woods and kids running things scares parents. Also getting the parents engaged is tough. Have crews going on high adventure and could not find enough parents that would serve as leaders. Ended up recruiting a past leader who's son aged out 3 years ago and then an older brother who is 21 and an Eagle from our troop. 15 years ago we had wait lists for adults for the treks. As I noted, really not sure of the long term fix.

No more and no less, use the tools and requirements Sadly there are units that feel the need to put "their" spin on projects. Must have CAD drawings, Must build something, Must put in XX hours, Must have XX Scouts work on the project, Must, Must, Must. While the intentions may be good, as has been noted, these local add-ons do not adhere to G2A. How to politely navigate that deviation can be a challenge

This seems to be part of the overall trend where Scouting is less experiential learning, less growing through group dynamics, less boy led and more, well almost school work focus. Along with MBU and not really becoming "Scouts", this is wanted by parents, who do not want to actually be involved, they just have expectations. They are expecting the new scouts to stay within their peer groups, stay in their comfort zones, get socially promoted through the ranks and be led by the leaders through monitored and "safe" activities. That whole outdoor and weekend camping interferes with sports, is scary and challenging, and boys may get dirty and be uncomfortable. Also how will the parents keep an eye on them, I mean they aren't heading out to the woods as an ASM or leader. In many cases the new crossover families want a warm and embracing Webelos III experience. The challenge is many boys, after 5th grade, find this somewhat boring. The retention rates is very low for many units due to these expectations and families assuming the Scouts program (11 - 17 years olds) will be like Cubs. One of the reasons there is not overall growth in the program. On a macro scale the promise of fun and adventure in many (though not all) cases is not being delivered. Units are getting way smaller. Average size for units at our camp 8 years ago was +/- 24 youth in camp. Last year the average was less than 17 youth. The Scouts that are in units that camp, that challenge them, that get them out of their normal comfort zone, and let the youth run the program keep those Scouts. Those units lose most to aging out, not just having kids not showing up any more. Sadly there are less and less units that are run in this manner.

Massaging numbers can take a good bit of time, you can't just cook the books overnight. Has to be somewhat believable.

The complete lack of transparency by BSA (or DBA SA as part of BSA...it's somewhat confusing) on actual membership numbers is certainly neither Trustworthy or Helpful and is troubling. I would also suggest that the management team is not at all Thrifty with BSA resources. Obviously the numbers are low, or they have no good way to validate or generate membership numbers. Par for the course for an organization that judges success by money raised and not participants