Too many Council Camps?

[shortridge 184]

Our council owns/has access to several small properties that are called camps, they are rented thru the council office. They are generally fairly remote and too small to host any events. No shelters, No water and pit toilets only.

 

OK, gotcha. I've not experienced those types of camps. Our two council camps, and the others that I've visited, are all "Reservations," several hundred acres minimum, with the full range of stuff. No mini-camps, as we have two good state park systems in our council that are used quite frequently for that type of camping.

 

Thanks for the clarification.

[Twocubdad 665]

Wasn't there a thread a year or two ago related to an initiative in the NE Region for which the developed a set of "super" camp standards (my phrase). The idea was to look at camps and councils from a longer-term standpoint that the one day snapshot current camp inspections do. As I recall it considered things like long-term attendance trends, staff retention, maintenance budgets, capital improvements, year-round use, etc. The intent was to determine which camps were making the grade long-term, not just year to year.

 

Anyone have an update on that?

 

I mentioned in another thread there is currently a group working to rewrite the camp standards. I would suspect there will be some element of that thinking in the new standards.

[packsaddle 753]

Acco40, I'm comparing to YMCA and similar camps where 4 days starts at around $400 and 12 days goes to more than $1000 or greater. These camps seem to be thriving and it isn't because they're cheap. They are competing successfully because they offer a product that is worth the price. AND THEY DON'T DO WITH VOLUNTEERS! or inexperienced, or disinterested staff.

 

The problem with offering a cheap product at a cheap price is summarized in the old bromide that still applies: 'the bitter taste of an inferior product will linger long after the sweet taste of a cheap price has passed.'

 

That makes scout camp a weak competitor. There are obviously people out there who are willing to pay for a good product. Why not attract them?

[shortridge 184]

pack,

 

Because raising the prices that much puts Scout camp out of the reach of many, many Scouts. That's why.

 

Camp costs in BSA are HEAVILY subsidized by fundraising and volunteers. To take an average camp out of the council system and set it up to run independently, charging exactly what it costs to run the camp, would lead to closure within a few years.

[packsaddle 753]

C'mon folks, which is it? TAHAWK claims in the other thread, "the goal of a good many Councils is to turn a profit on Summer Camp. I don't know of any that have a goal of subsidizing Summer Camp, except in the case of camperships." Here he makes the claim that camps are supposed to turn a profit....

.....while Shortridge writes, "Camp costs in BSA are HEAVILY subsidized by fundraising and volunteers. To take an average camp out of the council system and set it up to run independently, charging exactly what it costs to run the camp, would lead to closure within a few years."

 

I tend to agree with Shortridge but I would like to see someone try to reconcile these two views. Anyone wanna give it a try? I don't see how these two views can both correct simultaneously.

[Eagle92 110]

Can I try and reconcile?

 

Every council and camp is different. Some camps do make a profit, some break even, and others are subsidized. I heard somewhere that if a camp isn't making 800 campers per summer, then it is being subsidized. 800-1300 is breaking even, and 1300+ is making a profit.

[shortridge 184]

After reviewing the numbers collectively crunched in a previous thread (http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=236924), I can't see how it's possible for a camp to make a profit, unless it's a primarily primitive camp and lacks major amenities.

[Stosh 3452]

Like small rural churches, they would rather close than merge to share expenses/resources.

 

Too much pride and politics to make it work.

 

Stosh

[eisely 13]

We moved to the San Francisco bay area 15 years ago. The council governing the area where we live is the result of two councils being merged a few years before we moved. For many years the council tried to operate the two boy scout summer camps previously run by the two separate councils. The decision to close one of them was painful, but ultimately beneficial. Neither camp was on land owned by the council, so profiting by a gain on a sale was not part of the decision.

 

One way to think of a summer camp is that it is offering a service and is part of the service economy. One of the struggles that service providers have is that productivity of the labor either never changes or changes very slowly compared to say, manufacturing or agriculture. This has the effect of driving wages up over time. It is hard enough to recruit qualified staff to operate a single camp, much less two, and very hard to justify two camps when neither camp is operating a full season or close to break even.

 

There are some relatively local BSA properties, but these are no longer used as full blown summer camps. Anybody going to summer camp from here is facing a drive in excess of two hours, regardless of where you are going.

 

I can understand and sympathize with the emotional investment in a particular summer camp that many feel. The harsh reality is that many camps are underutilized and ultimately face consolidation or closure.

[trainerlady 10]

I am bleassed to have a boy scout and a girl scout in my family. Summer camps are night and day different for my kids. My daughter goes to camp on Sunday, kisses us good bye and we return after work on Friday and pick her up. We've done it this way since she was 7 years old. Son goes off to cub camp and now BS camp with Mom in tow. The BSA makes adults from units attend camp for leaderdship purposes. If a parent is a DL, CM, SM or ASM then we have to go to camp.

 

Daughter pays $50 a week more than son for her camp. Son may pay less but I have to pay too. So the family pays a total of $100 more for him to go to camp. Plus I have to take a week off of work (no vacation pay at my job), that really equals the cost to the family of $400 more than her camp.

 

GS camp never claims to be about advancement, just fun. BS camp always claims that by not going to camp the scout will be behind his peers due to lack of advancement opportunities. At son's first BS summer camp this year he had little fun. Too busy doing mb classes and advancing. Mb classes were jokes but he has 5 completed badges and 1 partial. Not a great use of the family money IMHO as he didn't really learn the subjects he took.

 

Son has already asked to go to church or YMCA camp next year instead of BS camp. Its fun, BS camp isn't. Mom and Dad are thinking of that as a good possibility. The family can't afford the lack of my paycheck for a week unless things in the economy change over the next year. For the extra $150 or so above his BS cost to do a non-BSA camp, we're ahead my paycheck.

 

Higher price camps (truly provo camps) are flourishing because parents unfortunately can't afford time off to go with their kids to BSA camps or other activities that require parental time. A YMCA type camp serves a huge niche. Daycare, evening care, grocery shopping, and entertainment needs for a kid. Its sad but a lot of families see long term camps as a way of taking care of their kids when school is out. no need to worry - kid is fed, sheltered, entertained, safe and getting exercise and fresh air, maybe laundry is done, haircut if needed.

 

Until the BSA figure out the this isn't the Leave it Beaver era anymore and changes camps to meet the needs of current parents we'll lose campers, members and by default camps. Our council has 4 camps, 2 are 3-5 hours away from the membership, 2 are 1-2 hours away from the membership. The 2 close ones are 15 miles apart, one is small ans one rather large. One will be gone in a year or two if things keep going as they are. Neither distant camp was full this year for any week of camp. One of them will probably go too. It might just take a little longer to happen.

 

The BSA needs to get out of the Leave it to Beaver days and realize that today's families and boys want and need different things than 10, 20 or 50 years ago.

[packsaddle 753]

Trainerlady, you make some great points.

 

Shortridge, "Thanks....for the memories..." that link is very useful. I knew it was out there somewhere, just didn't have time to rustle it up.

[momof2cubs 10]

Trainerlady, you make EXCELLENT points. Truthfully, most people only get two weeks off a year and as my husband put it: "I love scouting and I don't mind volunteering, but it sure as heck isn't gonna cost me a vacation week."

 

And in my particular case, for the next two summers, I will have one cub and one scout. How can I go with him to camp? What do I do with my other son? Put him in daycare?

 

I have recently heard that girl scouts go off on their own at camp as soon as they turn 7. BLEW MY MIND when in scouts my sons can't even go to a den meeting without me.

 

I think it's time to re-examine the whole set up.

[Basementdweller 608]

As a parent we all make choices.

 

I chose to live in a smaller house, drive an old truck, live in a less expensive area of town, not have the latest and greatest cell phone, not have a TV in every room of the house. We have made sacrifices so the kids never come home to an empty house or have to go to a latchkey program.

 

My wife goes to Girlscout camp so you don't have too trainer lady.

 

With Boy Scout camps why is it many troops bring as many adults as youth??

 

If your troop takes 10 adults for 20 youth shame on you. how are the boys going to have fun with adults chasing them all over camp for the week.

 

I am guessing your troop has added this nutty requirement them selves.

 

So Trainer, how many boys went and how many adults?????? You realize you could have simply said no.(This message has been edited by Basementdweller)

[trainerlady 10]

Basement - As one of four ASMs in the troop I had to go to camp. We took 18 boys to camp, therefore by our camps standards we needed 4 adults in camp at all times. A couple of other registered parents were in camp for a day or two at the beginning or end of the session but not for the whole thing. Our troop doesn't turn BS summer camp into a parent and lad camp. My saying "no" isn't as easy as you make it out to be. For 3 days mid week there were only the 4 SM/ASMs in camp. Also with my job I can have time off anytime I want, I just don't paid. Other parents get scheduled days off (firefighters, police officers, factory workers,etc), some have other children at home to care for. I have flexibility, they don't.

 

Our family made the choice to put our daughter in GS camp the same week as son was in BS camp to make life easier on my husband who has ZERO flexibility in his job. While we were all gone he worked 70 hours, 30 hours of forced overtime in a HOT, HOT steel mill in 100 degree heat outside.

 

So, Basement, if I had said no, tell me how you'd have picked the 3 kids that had to stay home for lack of supervision?

[shortridge 184]

The BSA makes adults from units attend camp for leaderdship purposes. If a parent is a DL, CM, SM or ASM then we have to go to camp.

 

We took 18 boys to camp, therefore by our camps standards we needed 4 adults in camp at all times.

 

trainerlady Neither of the things you cite are BSA requirements. They may be local rules of your unit or camp, but you cant blame National or the BSA structure.

 

>> Resident camps

 

National Camp Standards (http://bit.ly/oEduaI) require two adults per each eight boys for Cub Scout packs.

 

There is no such required ratio for Boy Scout camping, let alone summer camp. The summer camp leadership requirement is:

 

There must be a minimum of two adult leaders with each unit and/or campsite. In cases where units cannot provide two leaders, the council will coordinate with the unit to arrange to meet the two-deep leadership standard. The unit leader or anyone serving as a unit leader is at least 21 years of age and a registered member of the Boy Scouts of America. The second adult may be a registered Scouter 18 years of age or older, or a parent of a participating youth member. (from the camp standards document linked above)

 

That could mean an over-21 committee member and another parent could take the troop to summer camp - no SM or ASM presence required.

 

Ive known some troops that have parents on a schedule and rotate them in and out, so no one has to take off more than a day or two. Sometimes people who work during the day come and stay overnight, while graveyard shift workers head off to the plant. Its possible to do it without giving up an entire week. They generally do have one person on site the whole week to provide continuity and leadership (usually the SM or a senior ASM), but it's not required.

 

>> Council-organized camping experiences

 

For Cub camping, BSA strongly recommends that parents attend along with their son, because Cubs is a family program. But another parent (who is also a registered member) may take over that duty if the parent can't attend.

 

And DLs/CMs are not required to attend just because they are leaders - although it's a really good idea, since they know the program, the rules and the Cubs the best. Sometimes it's not always possible to synch up schedules, and the pack shouldn't be barred from going to summer camp just because the CM has to work that week.

 

("In special circumstances, a Cub Scout whose parent or legal guardian is not able to attend an overnight camping trip may participate under the supervision of another registered adult member of the BSA who is a parent of a Cub Scout who is also attending. The unit leader and a parent or legal guardian must agree to the arrangement, and all Youth Protection policies apply. At no time may another adult accept responsibility for more than one additional nonfamily member youth." - G2SS)(This message has been edited by shortridge)