Jameson76

17 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

 

It's just prideful political temper tantrums. And, more litigation for the youth organizations as young maturing adults realize they were steered toward accepting being a trans person. Doctors and hospitals are already being sued, but eventually they will go after organizations that encourage the youths to continue a lifestyle that led them away from their biological origin. Schools are already in the crosshairs. This is the child abuse of our present culture. And, ironically, women's equality. 

Barry

Wonder if there will be secret files and private exclusion lists.  What's old is suddenly new again

3 hours ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

UPDATE:

01 March ended the grace period for those memberships which expired on 31 Dec.  Those expired memberships have now dropped off the rolls.

Let's look at the updated numbers now...

As of 03 March, numbers pulled moments ago...

Same Month Last Year: 980,311 (Mar 2025)  all programs...

Total Current Youth: 781,539 (Mar 2026) a 20.28% drop from last year.

Last Year End:  907,950 (This is the 31 Dec 2025 number in the system.)  This changed by +1  from previous reports. (weird, huh?)

Dec 2024 End of Year number was: 986,520

These numbers include Learning for Life,  33,478 on the books now.

The current group of professionals and key volunteers know how (in some cases) to raise money.  Grow program, not so much.  Sad part is they are raising money on the nostalgia of the BSA, not the current BSA

No real effort being made to add units or expand the program.  Lots of excuses as to why membership decline, just no real honest effort to make updates so people (families) may want to buy what is being sold

8 hours ago, skeptic said:

The scouts never had issue with them, only the parents.

In 1973 the Scouts saw the issue with the change in requirements and the Improved Scouting Program, were you an old Eagle or a New Eagle.  Those who all the various policy changes and enhancements handed down from on high over the years have impacted clearly see through the fog.

The Scouts saw CIS for what is was, corporate foolishness.  Never underestimate what the youth see and understand.  Do not assume that since they were earning the MB they did not see the fallacy in the CIS MB

2 hours ago, Navybone said:

terms you use  to refute the value of the MB are "feel good requirement" and " no challenge."    The mission of Scouting America is to prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law.  Its vision to make people good citizens.  Understanding people makes them good citizens.  It does not need to be hard, but knowing how it see others from thier point of view is a mature and effective tool to be a good citizen.  

You think there are no answers to the terms and that they can make you Racist.  There are definitions.  They are in the training that the MB Counselors have to take:  

Key definitions included in the materials:

• Identities: Traits that make up who a person is, including race, gender, age, religion, and ability.
• Diversity: The presence of a wide range of individual identities.
• Equality: The state of having equal status, rights, and opportunities.
• Equity: Providing resources tailored to individuals to ensure fair access to opportunities.
• Inclusion: Active efforts to create a sense of belonging and participation for all individuals.
• Discrimination: The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people.

If a scout does not understand them, then we talk about them.  Maybe you can explain now they are racist. 

 

If you are a front line leader we talk to Scouts all the time.  About many many items, some intentionally and some as casual conversation.

Reminder we are all volunteers.  The Cit is Society was a knee jerk reaction to a societal event.  We can talk with Scouts about these particular issues, but again, we all have a variety of biases and experiences.  There are in fact no right answers to any of the CIS requirements, what is covered is all based on some MB counselors life experiences which may or may not dovetail with the Scouts and their families experiences and beliefs.  That could be good or bad.  The issue with CIS is it was ill conceived, a trendy MB to satisfy elements in society who don't like Scouting anyway, and honestly would be instructed solely based on the MB counselors beliefs.  No objective criteria no objective evaluation, no real requirements.

Best this is a MB be put aside and the organization moves on.

56 minutes ago, Navybone said:

What requirements in the Cit Society MB did you have issue with, do you think were against the ideals and goals of Scouting America?  

The main issue was that this was another classroom badge, do it in at Merit Badge U in a few hours.  Overall it was an empty suit.  While nothing egregious against basic goals, it was not challenging and was a check the box.  Nothing to accomplish, no measurable items,  just feel good writing.  It was smoke and mirrors to say "Hey, look how progressive we are".

Remember the requirements:

2 hours ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

 

Here is what I can see...

Post here if you want your specific council numbers, or I can see by state, also.  Also, if you want to know by program, sing out...

As of today, National level, all programs including Learning for Life, total youth registered is 877, 225.  Same month last year number was 986,520.

So, overall, drop is 109,295 Scouts, or 11.08% loss, from Dec 2024 to Dec 2025  I'll check these numbers again after 31 Dec, when many current registrations expire, and again after mid-March, when the 60 day grace period expires.

We are losing about 10% in our Troop, due to those turning 18.  Hope to gain those back during crossover season.

Please remind me

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.

4 hours ago, Tron said:

Council Service Territory maps were updated last night. It's not clear which councils merged but it looks like at least 1 council in California is merged out and 1 council in Pennsylvania or New Jersey is merged out as well. 

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.  

16 minutes ago, qwazse said:

The delusional thinking regarding increased membership stupefies me. We will be fortunate if we see a turnaround in a decade. Prove me wrong. (Seriously, please prove me wrong.)

This summer, I did meet a couple that said they would not support our troop if it ever went coed. If five girls approach me to start a unit, I’ll help them. But, I have no inclination to hazard community support if SA continues the corporate doublespeak of “family” scouting. I’d rather say our CO fields a unit for boys, and one for girls, and they sometimes join in the same activities.

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

3 hours ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

However, with everything the council has done, and not done, we don't want them to get a dime more than what they are charging.

 

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

45 minutes ago, skeptic said:

There is a certain irony that National grew from the need to respond to the trenches where Scouting struggled to survive, but was locally vibrant for the times.  And now, when we are back to struggles in similar chasms, they seem to be unaware of reality too often.  Our local council seems too often to simply not get that most volunteers simply want to be kept in the loop.  Our successes are almost all unit based, and seldom noted by Council, unless they find issue.

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

23 hours ago, njdrt-rdr said:

We just had a brand new scout join our troop here in NJ, between council($75), national($85) and administrative fee($4.88). The fee to BSA to join was $167.68.
Our campout this weekend we are canoeing. Our troop has canoes, but we can't get enough leaders this weekend to shuttle ourselves so we had to hire a shuttle. It's $31 a person for the shuttle and $10 a person to camp (group site at a state park) so we are at $41 each for the weekend and haven't charged for food or supplies yet. So I can see a campout being $71. 

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

1 hour ago, Tron said:

there are far too many councils

As an organization and movement we have to grow past an 8 week utilization period for our camps, and our camps need to look at the hotel and for profit camping industry for appropriate usage levels; we have too many properties competing for summer camp dollars and as an organization we don't have any idea on how to run the camps the remaining 44 weeks of the year. 

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

1. Philmont
2. Seabase
3. 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.

3 hours ago, Tron said:

National is not "publicly" releasing membership numbers. It's not hard for volunteers to get those numbers though, just have to ask your district leadership. My understanding is that membership is down nationwide; however, with the new membership method we won't have a really good apples-to-apples look until December 31st. My council just did a hard shift from fundraising to recruiting, and every unit in my district was given a made up recruitment number that was arbitrary. My understanding (if the numbers being shared in my council are correct) is that my council isn't even trying to recruit to keep membership stable. Even if we hit these made up recruitment numbers we're (the council) going to come in something like 5-10% below our previous post covid membership peak for this recruitment push. 

I think the most alarming thing about what is going on is the number of units folding. All of nationals numbers, analysis, etc ... from the CST's and NAM meetings were tied to the fact that packs and troops are roughly the average same size for various reasons and that "super units" are anomalies and we need more units to actually gain more scouts.  

 

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.

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.

37 minutes ago, Tron said:

The standdown shouldn't be a big deal. This shouldn't affect the summer camps. National needs to put resources into investigating the risks, conduct an analysis, and put out any recommendations (if needed, S happens right?). 3 weeks until camp should be a headache but not a show stopper. 

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

5 hours ago, Tron said:

This is not quite accurate any longer. It's their (DE and commissioner corps) job to advise, but it's no longer their role to be held accountable for a units success or failure. He can reach out to them for help but it will only be worth while if the troop is ready and willing to listen. 

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.

2 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

Stop the Lion and Tiger program. My feeder pack has 95 scouts now, only 1 AOL crossover.  Kids and parents burn out after 5 years of Cub Scouting.  

Our Troop went from 83 to 17 and after next year likely less than 10.  Covid and Lion parent burnout hit Cub Scout transfers over the last 5 years.

Most kids join Scouts BSA as Cub Scout transfers, so see if you can get a Wolf to AOL pack started. 

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