possible fee increase coming

[Eagle94-A1 2687]

2 minutes ago, qwazse said:

Most of my older venturers compared the last cost increase to the cost of a night camping with a decent dinner and breakfast. They concluded they could do just as well without the BSA.

Last cost increase was  approx 50%  I am hearing everything from $50 to $125 now, which is 51% to  378% increase, with one council anticipating a 300% increase. That is not chump change for some families with 1 person involved, let alone those families with multiple registered. There are families in my area, long time Scouting families I might add, that are looking at alternatives.

[njdrt-rdr 40]

On ‎10‎/‎15‎/‎2019 at 10:34 PM, swilliams said:

Then you have the new requirement that all Eagle projects must have two registered adults present. 

Can you tell me where you saw this requirement?

[Sentinel947 1205]

1 hour ago, njdrt-rdr said:

Can you tell me where you saw this requirement?

Guide to safe Scouting requires two registered adults over 21 for all Scouting activities. 

[Cubmaster Pete 71]

2 hours ago, njdrt-rdr said:

Can you tell me where you saw this requirement?

I think they are referring to the BSA regulation about 2 deep leadership at every Scout function, no matter what it is.

[ParkMan 1293]

On 10/17/2019 at 10:16 AM, Eagle94-A1 said:

That's why some families do not do swimming and other sports, they cannot afford it.

EDITED:

And some families have stated that depending upon the new fee, they may be unable to afford Scouting as well.

 

To be fair to those families.  When someone joins anything - be it simming, scouting, soccer, whatever - they do a little cost/budget/benefit analysis. When you start changing the costs, families inherently are going to re-do that analysis in their mind.

For some they really can't afford the new amount.  For some, they just dislike having to pay more and so have a lot of frustration when they are asked to pay more.  Of others, they look at the new amount and think "no problem".

As I mentioned in @Cubmaster Pete's thread - based on my back of the napkin calculations, this will increase the cost of Cub Scouts from $200 to $233 (17%) and Scouts BSA from $500 to $533 (7%).  These kind of increases are certainly not something I enjoy, but seems absorbable based on the benefits I see from the BSA. 

My gut tells me that most people will be able to absorb the increase.  In my opinion, the specific things you get from the National Council are not worth an additional $33 a year.  But, the value I get from the Scouting program in the BSA system is easily worth a 7% to 17% increase.  The program structure in the BSA is very good, the activities provided by leaders for my kids outstanding, the advancement program is terrific, the facilities maintained by the councils & national outstanding.  The district & council level programming provided is a nice bonus to our unit activities.  The adult leader support & training that comes from volunteers & professionals is pretty extensive.  I'm sure I could easily name more.  Is it worth it to me to move to a less developed program over a 7% to 17% increase - I really don't think so.

[walk in the woods 888]

@ParkMan The structure of your argument makes sense, but, I wonder if it isn't incomplete.  Another analysis goes something like this:

Current costs for Susie Cub Scout, $200, Tommy Tenderfoot $500, Parent Leader $300 (let's say) for a total of $1000.  Assuming a $33/person increase  that becomes effectively $1100. 

The question isn't whether a family can absorb the 10% relative increase, rather, the question being prompted is if the BSA is providing $1100/year worth of value.  

[Cubmaster Pete 71]

2 minutes ago, walk in the woods said:

 

The question isn't whether a family can absorb the 10% relative increase, rather, the question being prompted is if the BSA is providing $1100/year worth of value.  

Exactly. Even if it's only that, and as @ParkMan said it's not that much, but are parents going to say "Increase? Nope. I will spend my allocated $ for youth programs elsewhere"

Unfortunately, people aren't as loyal as we would like to hope. There is too much out there to be a part of. And current negativity towards the BSA, warranted or not, makes any increase a hard sell.

Believe me, when I need to go to families and ask for MORE money, I will surely blame Nationals ineptitude. I have no issue throwing them under the bus.

[5thGenTexan 504]

39 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

 

To be fair to those families.  When someone joins anything - be it simming, scouting, soccer, whatever - they do a little cost/budget/benefit analysis. When you start changing the costs, families inherently are going to re-do that analysis in their mind.

For some they really can't afford the new amount.  For some, they just dislike having to pay more and so have a lot of frustration when they are asked to pay more.  Of others, they look at the new amount and think "no problem".

As I mentioned in @Cubmaster Pete's thread - based on my back of the napkin calculations, this will increase the cost of Cub Scouts from $200 to $233 (17%) and Scouts BSA from $500 to $533 (7%).  These kind of increases are certainly not something I enjoy, but seems absorbable based on the benefits I see from the BSA. 

My gut tells me that most people will be able to absorb the increase.  In my opinion, the specific things you get from the National Council are not worth an additional $33 a year.  But, the value I get from the Scouting program in the BSA system is easily worth a 7% to 17% increase.  The program structure in the BSA is very good, the activities provided by leaders for my kids outstanding, the advancement program is terrific, the facilities maintained by the councils & national outstanding.  The district & council level programming provided is a nice bonus to our unit activities.  The adult leader support & training that comes from volunteers & professionals is pretty extensive.  I'm sure I could easily name more.  Is it worth it to me to move to a less developed program over a 7% to 17% increase - I really don't think so.

I will accept 17% all day long, but I think it will be more than that.  My DE says an increase up to $48 and I don't like it but will probably go along with it.  The suggestions it might be $100 or more will cause me to bail.  This is my third year as a leader and I am CM this year planning on WB in Jan, so I am just a parent.  There are 4 of us in my family and $400 a year to National is not going to be possible.  I know the original letter from National said that to cover the increase we could just sell more popcorn and that line of thinking makes me say unkind things.

[Jackdaws 59]

23 minutes ago, 5thGenTexan said:

I will accept 17% all day long, but I think it will be more than that.  My DE says an increase up to $48 and I don't like it but will probably go along with it.  The suggestions it might be $100 or more will cause me to bail.  This is my third year as a leader and I am CM this year planning on WB in Jan, so I am just a parent.  There are 4 of us in my family and $400 a year to National is not going to be possible.  I know the original letter from National said that to cover the increase we could just sell more popcorn and that line of thinking makes me say unkind things.

This is the part that just kills me.    We can't sell that much popcorn around here.  Its way too over priced.  So  the BSA assumes that we can just wave a magic wand and make it all better.  

BSA needs to come up with something else that is cheaper and that people wont mind paying for.    We really should just seize the GSA and their cookies. 

[Cubmaster Pete 71]

50 minutes ago, 5thGenTexan said:

  There are 4 of us in my family and $400 a year to National is not going to be possible.  I know the original letter from National said that to cover the increase we could just sell more popcorn and that line of thinking makes me say unkind things.

I can sympathise, there are 6 of us including CC/DL mama and me. 

We don't sell popcorn at my unit. I refuse to. We make more money doing other fundraisers. 

[njdrt-rdr 40]

3 hours ago, Sentinel947 said:

Guide to safe Scouting requires two registered adults over 21 for all Scouting activities. 

Hmm...That never dawned on me with an eagle project...I'm sure I'm wrong, I guess generally it never clicked to me as a scout event because it wasn't run by the troop.

[HashTagScouts 435]

11 minutes ago, njdrt-rdr said:

Hmm...That never dawned on me with an eagle project...I'm sure I'm wrong, I guess generally it never clicked to me as a scout event because it wasn't run by the troop.

it's any activity- if you are having kids standing outside a store selling items, you need 2 adults 21+.  A patrol activity, same.  MB class, same.

[ParkMan 1293]

2 hours ago, walk in the woods said:

@ParkMan The structure of your argument makes sense, but, I wonder if it isn't incomplete.  Another analysis goes something like this:

Current costs for Susie Cub Scout, $200, Tommy Tenderfoot $500, Parent Leader $300 (let's say) for a total of $1000.  Assuming a $33/person increase  that becomes effectively $1100. 

The question isn't whether a family can absorb the 10% relative increase, rather, the question being prompted is if the BSA is providing $1100/year worth of value.  

I'm not for a moment suggesting I'm in favor of an increase.  Merely that predictions of doom and gloom as a result simply strike me as a bit strong.

You make a fair point.  Again, we all have financial lines that we cannot cross.  My gut tells me that if a family is that engaged in Scouting, they probably see a lot of value in ir.  My gut tells me that a 10% increase in the cost of participating in something that spend that much time in is likely to be absorbed.

I'd make a distinction here.  Is the national organization of the BSA worth $200 a year for a family of four?  No, I would argue that it is not.  However, is participating in the Scouting program as implemented in the BSA worth $1,100?  I'd suggest that yes it is.  

[ParkMan 1293]

2 hours ago, Cubmaster Pete said:

Exactly. Even if it's only that, and as @ParkMan said it's not that much, but are parents going to say "Increase? Nope. I will spend my allocated $ for youth programs elsewhere"

Unfortunately, people aren't as loyal as we would like to hope. There is too much out there to be a part of. And current negativity towards the BSA, warranted or not, makes any increase a hard sell.

Believe me, when I need to go to families and ask for MORE money, I will surely blame Nationals ineptitude. I have no issue throwing them under the bus.

How do you blame national for this fee increase?  

Everything I have read - here and in other places - clearly indicates that the reason for this fee increase is the increase in costs by the underwriters of our insurance program.  The fees in this insurance program are growing because of lawsuits filed as the result of abuse cases that predate just about all of our involvement in Scouting.  My understanding is that a significant reason for these current lawsuits is the extensions of state laws on the time frame upon which lawsuits needed to be filed.  Further, it appears that many of these lawsuits are being organized by trial lawyers who are encouraging victims to file these lawsuits.

I'm the first to support victims of abuse.  What happened earlier in our history is reprehensible and beyond any defense.  BSA leadership at the time only made things worse by being secretive with records.  Abuse is a heinous crime.

I cannot imagine what the current leadership of the organization could have done to prevent the abuse 20, 30, or more years ago and the current crop of lawsuits.

As far as I can tell, they are instead working to do the proper thing to both keep the organization afloat and the respect the victims of abuse by our predecessors in the program.

[Eagledad 2777]

3 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

How do you blame national for this fee increase?  

Everything I have read - here and in other places - clearly indicates that the reason for this fee increase is the increase in costs by the underwriters of our insurance program.  The fees in this insurance program are growing because of lawsuits filed as the result of abuse cases that predate just about all of our involvement in Scouting.  My understanding is that a significant reason for these current lawsuits is the extensions of state laws on the time frame upon which lawsuits needed to be filed.  Further, it appears that many of these lawsuits are being organized by trial lawyers who are encouraging victims to file these lawsuits.

I'm the first to support victims of abuse.  What happened earlier in our history is reprehensible and beyond any defense.  BSA leadership at the time only made things worse by being secretive with records.  Abuse is a heinous crime.

I cannot imagine what the current leadership of the organization could have done to prevent the abuse 20, 30, or more years ago and the current crop of lawsuits.

As far as I can tell, they are instead working to do the proper thing to both keep the organization afloat and the respect the victims of abuse by our predecessors in the program.

Everything you said is true. Still, I've said before that if this litigation happened 20 years ago, I believe the donors would have saved the BSA. The membership social inclusive situations (not sure what to call them) has drove away much of that support. If National did anything wrong, they didn't give their followers any by-in of a future. 

Barry