2023 Recruiting Update

[yknot 1338]

2 hours ago, Ojoman said:

Fee increases were built into the settlement along with a projected increase in membership. I suspect that if membership does not grow as projected that the fee increases may be even more. It appears that our council will end the year down in membership. In two months we should have a new Scout Exec and we'll see if that makes a difference. 

That's why I'm certain fees will have to rise -- I can't recall where the settlement plan is but I think we were supposed to see a modest gain of around 1.2 million by now. There was a modest national annual fee increase attached to that plan so if the numbers are lower, the projected increase will likely be higher unless another revenue stream has developed. 

[Ojoman 157]

3 hours ago, yknot said:

That's why I'm certain fees will have to rise -- I can't recall where the settlement plan is but I think we were supposed to see a modest gain of around 1.2 million by now. There was a modest national annual fee increase attached to that plan so if the numbers are lower, the projected increase will likely be higher unless another revenue stream has developed. 

What bothers me more than National raising their fees are all the councils that are tacking on 'service and insurance' fees. First it was the national charter fee, then a council insurance fee, (the insurance fee I understand because years ago units had to carry their own accident and illness coverage until councils took it over) and then they started with the services fee. I never worked in a council that charged a 'services' fee. We (the professional staff) raised funds through the product sale, the family and community friends of scouting campaign and major gifts or events. In my later years I generally had all my finance goals met by June so I could focus on the summer camping duties. I was generally the only one that consistently did that. To this day I feel that the board and professional staff supported by district volunteers should raise those funds and the units only pay the national fees. My council basically doubles the fee with their surcharges. Not a good thing. A neighboring council only charges a small insurance fee. I could live with that. 

Edited December 9, 2023 by Ojoman

[OaklandAndy 70]

8 hours ago, Ojoman said:

What bothers me more than National raising their fees are all the councils that are tacking on 'service and insurance' fees.

Council insurance went up anywhere between 3%-5% across the country for the upcoming year.  Our council has to pay national something like $65,000 just for recharter, hence our fee going up. Council's are trying to survive too, but it's hard when National raises rates for everyone....scouts, volunteers, mbc, councils, etc. 

[yknot 1338]

12 hours ago, Ojoman said:

What bothers me more than National raising their fees are all the councils that are tacking on 'service and insurance' fees. First it was the national charter fee, then a council insurance fee, (the insurance fee I understand because years ago units had to carry their own accident and illness coverage until councils took it over) and then they started with the services fee. I never worked in a council that charged a 'services' fee. We (the professional staff) raised funds through the product sale, the family and community friends of scouting campaign and major gifts or events. In my later years I generally had all my finance goals met by June so I could focus on the summer camping duties. I was generally the only one that consistently did that. To this day I feel that the board and professional staff supported by district volunteers should raise those funds and the units only pay the national fees. My council basically doubles the fee with their surcharges. Not a good thing. A neighboring council only charges a small insurance fee. I could live with that. 

To be honest, scouting has been mismanaged, both organizationally and financially, for decades. Better management could have resulted in better cost efficiencies, but the reality is that scouting has long had an over reliance on volunteers and families paying the way with no real back up plan in place. With membership declining, volunteerism interests shifting, fundraising become more difficult to do in general, and families less willing to contribute to FOS, scouting's old staffing and financial structures no longer work and the only real viable short term plan to survive is to raise fees. The liability insurance market impact and fall out from the bankruptcy has yet to be fully felt from the national down to the CO level and this will likelydrive yet higher fees in years ahead. The only good news I've heard is a rumor that BSA is piloting a new online fundraising platform but trying to run an organization in 2023 off fundraising is still a tough challenge even with better options available. 

[PACAN 220]

The "funny" thing is that councils who added council fees to each scout (which was not allowed before but ignored) seemed to think this fee would be additive to FOS.    Another typical "no idea".   The parents saw right through this and the result is that the council fee is FOS and the FOS goals were never going to be met as the only ones who contributed FOS were the obligatory contributions from the Executive Boards who for the most part have no scouts in the program any longer.

 

 

[SiouxRanger 491]

36 minutes ago, PACAN said:

The "funny" thing is that councils who added council fees to each scout (which was not allowed before but ignored) seemed to think this fee would be additive to FOS.    Another typical "no idea".   The parents saw right through this and the result is that the council fee is FOS and the FOS goals were never going to be met as the only ones who contributed FOS were the obligatory contributions from the Executive Boards who for the most part have no scouts in the program any longer.

 

 

FOS is defunct in my council. Haven't received a solicitation in at least 3 years.  It seems to rely on major fundraising events for funding.  And major donations, but I think those are few-and limited to capital improvements-and even at that I think that is nearly zero.

And who wants to pay for past abuse claims?

Major donors want to put their name on a building or trail…

And, even at that, my council sold off a piece of land named for the purchasers/donors to pay its portion of the bankruptcy settlement. (Get a good lawyer to restrict the use of the land donated.)

Our council has maybe half or 1/3rd the staff of 5 years ago.

"Thriving" is not a word heard here these days.

[Ojoman 157]

5 hours ago, yknot said:

Better management could have resulted in better cost efficiencies,

I do agree that there are a lot of things that could be done to better manage expenses but my council is raising fewer dollars now than they did 25 years ago and that means that they are really only raising about 30% of what the actual value of those old dollars could purchase. This council has not kept pace with inflation, it has cut staff and services which has resulted in higher membership and unit losses than the national average. It reflects bad management all around. We do have the William Hillcourt Museum which is a bright spot in an otherwise dark landscape but that is totally run by volunteers and has paid its own way for the past quarter century. I have said for years that the council should build an income event around it. Beyond that the council needs to rethink all of their budgetary needs and prioritize rebuilding the unit serving aspect of the operation. 

 

[Ojoman 157]

3 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

And who wants to pay for past abuse claims?

My basic understanding of the new national fees is that part of that is included in the settlement structure. FOS type donations should be available to councils for any and all council needs. (Please correct me if you know differently) so donors today shouldn't have to worry about nes council endowment funds or properties going to settle abuse claims. Having said that... 20 years ago my council sold off their service center and one in a council we merged with and I know ours was from a quarter of a million $$$ gift just a few years earlier and they also sold off a camp that came in a merger. Most of the funds were used to pay off accumulated debt by a scout exec that couldn't raise funds. Personally, I blame the board for putting up with that particular SE for as long as they did. The staff and many volunteers knew what was going on. Mismanagement at all levels does play a significant role as to where the BSA finds itself today. 

[PACAN 220]

Any of our number folks seen any end of 2023 numbers?

[RememberSchiff 3683]

In 2023, LaSalle Council (Northern Indiana, Southern Michigan) ranked second of 245 councils in membership growth (Who's on First? I dunno.) with a 21% growth rate of Cub and scouts. Female scouts increased by 7%

Credit was given to the $1.3M Lily Endowment for keeping scouting costs down, the Marines for building storm shelters and pavilions at Camp ToPeNeBee, and well as volunteers (500 new recruits).

Sources (good PR release!)

https://www.wbiw.com/2024/01/15/boy-scouts-lasalle-council-ranked-second-in-the-country-for-growth/

https://www.abc57.com/news/local-boy-scout-council-has-nationally-ranked-growth-in-2023

https://buildingindiana.com/boy-scouts-lasalle-council-isnt-just-growing-its-thriving/

Edited January 15 by RememberSchiff

[yknot 1338]

Like PACAN I'm still looking for some national 2023 membership numbers. As far as I can tell, BSA hasnt yet published a year end recap unlike most prior years. The last numbers kindly posted by Malraux didn't seem to trend toward an increase for 2024 but you never know. 

[Ojoman 157]

3 hours ago, yknot said:

you never know. 

You never know and even with growth it can be deceiving... I always wanted to see the numbers after all the recharters are processed. Year end with most units rechartering in December means the losses don't show up until January and the dropped units I believe still lapse and stay on for 2 additional months so you don't get a true membership picture until March. I believe the district I'm in expects to drop 3 of its 37 units... I would want to see the March to March comparison. By then most crossovers are completed so you get a good picture of if there was growth by program. December might look good and then the losses show up in January and March and the great year end turns out to be a mirage. You know the adage, figures never lie but .... 

[yknot 1338]

3 hours ago, Ojoman said:

You never know and even with growth it can be deceiving... I always wanted to see the numbers after all the recharters are processed. Year end with most units rechartering in December means the losses don't show up until January and the dropped units I believe still lapse and stay on for 2 additional months so you don't get a true membership picture until March. I believe the district I'm in expects to drop 3 of its 37 units... I would want to see the March to March comparison. By then most crossovers are completed so you get a good picture of if there was growth by program. December might look good and then the losses show up in January and March and the great year end turns out to be a mirage. You know the adage, figures never lie but .... 

The past couple of years National has reported growth on January 1 using the December 31 numbers but after March 31 you would see that it was an actual loss not a gain for the reasons you note. Based on what we were shown here in early December, it seemed like that wasn't going to be able to work for 2024. I just wondered if anything had changed. Keep in mind with the new rolling membership strategy, the March recharter cut off may lose some of its significance. I'm not sure how they are going to work it, but I think BSA said new rolling memberships would have a six month renewal grace period so while the charters might be accurate, they might still claim the memberships under the rationale that they are hoping they will transition over to another unit. 

[Ojoman 157]

10 hours ago, yknot said:

Keep in mind with the new rolling membership strategy, the March recharter cut off may lose some of its significance. 

This may be the last year that we really can get any sort of an accurate year to year membership picture as you point out with individual registrations spread through the year instead of at recharter time. I suspect that one reason for new members paying the whole 12 months up front is to guarantee that National collects a 12 month fee from those that would join in the fall and drop out prior to recharter after only paying for 3 or 4 months. 

 

[Eagle94-A1 2687]

That, and they want income year round, not just in the fall round up season and at  recharter time.