camp usage

[Tron]

20 hours ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

I guess folks at national don't realize that some places have school until mid-June.

This is a very valid point; however, the counter to this point is that the weeks blocked by the school year need to somehow get made up through other weeks of usage sometime else in the calendar year. 

The point I think national is trying to make is that all service industry companies (hotels, travel, camping, etc ... ) have a minimum usage/occupancy to just break even and our camps don't even try to meet that level. 

15 hours ago, jcousino said:

This is shown by a decrease in FOS gifts. 

The larger the geographic area of councils, the better the staff to scout ratio in a council, the less dependent a council is on FOS. My opinion continues to shift towards FOS being an addiction that is killing councils. If councils had roughly 10 paid staff and somewhere near 10,000 scouts there is almost no need for FOS; however, when a council is 2,000 or 3,000 scouts and the paid staff is 10+ the professionals that should support the program spend all of their time hustling for money instead of doing their real jobs. We need to condense down to roughly 100 councils if we are going to be able to re-align the professional staff to program. 

13 hours ago, skeptic said:

And there lies the rub.  Staffing cannot meet the needs of most youth that work for college money or other things.  Years ago, the low wages were okay, as the cost of living was far less, and there were more attendees due to fewer other summer opportunities for youth.  Before youth sports and traveling teams, and media that encouraged things few would have thought of fifty years ago, the camp staff experience was still rewarding.  Few youth had cars, so that expense was not an issue, and simply the slower pace of life took pressure much of the time.off '

 

This is solved by having fewer camps. The smallest camp in my area can handle around 200 to 250 guests per resident camp week. The largest can handle around 500 to 600 guests per resident camp week. If scouting ran those larger camps at 100% capacity they could afford to pay the staff well enough to draw in more, and higher quality camp staff. National also needs to find more recognition for those camp staff; some sort of knot progression to show off years/seasons of service, codify some rules to fast track OA membership, brotherhood and vigil. Fun fact, pay and recognition work. 

[skeptic]

1 hour ago, Tron said:

This is a very valid point; however, the counter to this point is that the weeks blocked by the school year need to somehow get made up through other weeks of usage sometime else in the calendar year. 

The point I think national is trying to make is that all service industry companies (hotels, travel, camping, etc ... ) have a minimum usage/occupancy to just break even and our camps don't even try to meet that level. 

The larger the geographic area of councils, the better the staff to scout ratio in a council, the less dependent a council is on FOS. My opinion continues to shift towards FOS being an addiction that is killing councils. If councils had roughly 10 paid staff and somewhere near 10,000 scouts there is almost no need for FOS; however, when a council is 2,000 or 3,000 scouts and the paid staff is 10+ the professionals that should support the program spend all of their time hustling for money instead of doing their real jobs. We need to condense down to roughly 100 councils if we are going to be able to re-align the professional staff to program. 

This is solved by having fewer camps. The smallest camp in my area can handle around 200 to 250 guests per resident camp week. The largest can handle around 500 to 600 guests per resident camp week. If scouting ran those larger camps at 100% capacity they could afford to pay the staff well enough to draw in more, and higher quality camp staff. National also needs to find more recognition for those camp staff; some sort of knot progression to show off years/seasons of service, codify some rules to fast track OA membership, brotherhood and vigil. Fun fact, pay and recognition work. 

They also need to stop making excuses about local council independence.  It a small portion of the monies donated on a national level were properly shared with those smaller camps, and perhaps National found a few donors from their own list to step in, some might be salvedged.  IF Camping is to be a mainsay of the program, the camps need to survive locally.  Few local groups can travel to the Big and solvent ones.  

More importantly, from my view, is the disconnect with our environmental and "teaching" face.  Every camp should be an example of how best to protect the enironment, and should find ways to showcase the best options.  Today, with huge progress in clean options, all of them should be using those options wheneve possible.  Not only a teaching element, but also a cost reduction.  Solar and wind are likely possible most places, and often also water power.  The camp cuts expenses and the Scouts learn the future.  Another barely touched option is partnerships with serious sporting and outdoor companies.  Using climbing walls in conjunction with local clubs; offering the camp space for corporate events; embracing the Mike Rowe concept of skilled learning.  A bit of the right connections might find large cooking schools for example that might find summer programs a great option for teaching and the camp could again save money and likely often eat better.  So much of this is difficult for councils to move into, but with a properly developed National program, with the smaller camps open to it as well, would bring huge forward movement, and maybe even overcome the negative press  with the right promos and examples.  Just an old guy with odd ideas that get written off.