yknot

I understand what's out there very well. Problems with value perception is why scouting is declining.

During Covid, membership at one point was at about 655,000, so he's probably right that overall scouting eventually clawed back about 260,000 post Covid. Scouting hasn't, however, added 260,000 in the past year.

There is no point comparing the costs of scouts to sports, it's a waste of time and not relevant to why most people pursue either activity. The costs for both are all over the map depending 1) where on the map you are, and 2) what level of involvement you are at. You can absolutely find travel leagues that are less than scouting. There are many access points and participation tiers. You can spend $10K or you can spend $1K. In many cases when you break down the fees and the hours involved in each activity, scouting has a higher per hour cost than sports and that's why a lot of families see it as a better value and use of their time. Both activities are great for kids at whatever level you can afford them and dependent on their interests and how that fits in with the family time and budget. Scouting needs to focus on listening to why more kids don't choose it.

I don't know exact national membership numbers but the latest I saw from earlier in the fall was around 915,000 and that was down about 90,000 from the same point the year before. There are some district positions that can access the membership totals on an ongoing basis and would know what the current number right now is. There used to be someone on here who would post them but I haven't seen him/her in awhile.

I couldn't agree more. The increasing focus in scouting on earning more well marketed advancement bling in talkfest meetings vs. doing something active, preferably outdoors, is such a self evident turn off for youth. I cannot comprehend this perspective at all.

I think you are choosing this hill to die on for some reason. If it works for your youth, great. But you can Google troops and units all over and see for yourself that many very healthy, active units, including ones spotlighted by BSA/SA, follow school schedules as they have done for decades and do great. Not meeting every single week is not a relevant cause of scouting's decline.

I have to believe the vast majority of units probably follow school schedules to a greater or lesser degree for simply pragmatic reasons. And most units can still manage to keep scouts engaged and active without a formal meeting every single week. People have posted examples here. There is generally plenty to engage scouts over a summer break, from camp to high adventure or volunteering. When units are failing, it's because of a hundred other problems that currently exist in scouting.

Two weeks? I'm really struggling to see that, especially over holiday weeks when there is so much else going on.

It really doesn't have bearing on anything if units meet a few more weeks or few less weeks in the course of a year and isn't an indicator of unit health. This is a mindset that has been pushed by National moreso for marketing, membership, and financial reasons than for any real reason.

Some units just follow local school district calendars because it affects meeting locations or, for certain families, school holiday closures affect child care, transportation, etc. It's not new or linked to burnout. It's just local convention in some places.

I don't have statistics but I don't think it matters much and it can go both ways no matter what kind of configuration you are in. We've had single district units, multi district units, and units with a mix of private schools. They can all work. I will point out that some legacy youth sports are increasingly operating in this way with many mergers of leagues or traditional local associations across town boundaries to keep player numbers up. It works. Kids make new friends from other towns.

Scouting America still selling cringe Indian Lore merit badge craft kits through online store... complete with medicine pouch and "proud hunter" necklace.

BSA "haters" would not be trying to deflect blame, though -- they would be doing the opposite.

That's a disturbing comment. While not pleasant to think about, it is certainly possible that some of the commentators on this forum over the years probably were involved in some of these cases. It's perhaps good to remember that a tactic of the guilty is to deflect blame elsewhere and weigh comments in that light.

Glad to hear it will still be maintained as an outdoor resource vs. being developed