My opinion only, which may or may not be worth anything.

National has costs. Program costs, staff costs, real estate costs, IT costs...; generally the same type of costs as any other large organization. When losing a source of income, either the income needs to be replaced or costs need to be cut, or a combination of both.

I suspect that advertising income (in boys life and scouter magazines) has dropped. 1) in keeping with the trend of advertisers to move advertising dollars from print (nwespapers and magazines) to web, and 2) decline in number of scouts, and therefore fewer readers of the magazines, affecting ad rates.

How this may have affected units is evident in changes that National has implemented over the past number of years. A good example is the change tried a few years ago where active = registered, doing nothing in a POR = completing the requirement for advancement uless the scout is removed from position (i.e., fired), and transferring any responsibility to be engaged from the scout to the SM. I don't see any reason for such an interpretation other than an attempt to keep membership numbers up by trading on the mystic of Eagle Scout. A view that continued awards would keep the membership numbers up more so than a focus on outdoor adventure. And perhaps they are right, given another macro trend of more indoor activites with computer games, and parental fears of what accidents and dangers lurk outside the confines of the house.

The BSA is self insured so all of the legal fees for Scoutmasters and their Assistant Scoutmasters who get sued because of injuries or deaths in Scouting are defended out of the national office. The so called perversion files that is embroiled in lawsuits that are paid by national. Every time there is a lawsuit over membership standards or access, that is paid for by national. The surveys called 'Voice of the Scout' to make better programs is paid for by national. Developing new programs, determining how to make programs better, update uniforms, etc. is paid by national. Scouting has more to do that is affordable than ever before. Climbing walls, COPE courses, etc. Councils raise money for those activities. Losing corporate supporters hurts all Scouts and Scouters.

I wonder if losing donations at the National level hasn't caused the "trickle up" of funds from Councils and local units? The unit charter fee went from $20 to $40 and was happilay renamed the "liability fee." That's cash out of a Troop, pack or Crew funds which is sent directly to the National office. They also increased the "laibility fee" for holding an Area or Region event. It used to be $1 for every 24 hours. It increased to $2 per day. A weekend typically cost a Scout $2 now costs him $6. Once again, it funds out of local hands siphoned off and sent to National.

Granted their are using this to replenish the bank account from paying out in lawsuits for incidents at the local level.

>>Major corporate supporters have withdrawn financial support.

and this impacts my Pack, Troop and Crew in exactly what way????

So are the camps being shut down and sold for what reason exactly?

Some because of poor attendance as a result of poor program or facilities.
Some because of poor promotion
Others because of the cost to comply with new group camp rules.

I have not heard of one that was highly attended and had a great program being shutdown.

>>I have not heard of one that was highly attended and had a great program being shutdown.

I don't know how the membership fees that are sent to the National Office are spent.
Still, even with the falling membership numbers, it seems to me that the BSA ought not be short of the odd dollar.
Add to this the other income from sales and magazines and the income that most volunteers don't know about or aren't aware of and I can't help feeling that the BSA is doing OK.

Often companies will support organizations in the area where they are located or have offices in.
The Council I serve receives hardly any money from grants,companies or the like.
The local United Way used to give us about $100,000 a year, but their board decided that they no longer were going to support organizations that had healthy endowment funds, opting to support organizations that really needed the money.

The Council next to us is a big Metro Council.
A lot of companies and Unions are headquartered there.
They receive a lot of cash from these.
In fact it's hard to walk around their Scout Reservation and not trip over a plaque informing you that so and so donated this or that.

Some companies will support groups that fall into specific groups, such as the arts or music.
All too often Scouts don't fall into these groups and more often than not the hoops and paperwork you need to jump through and submit are just a nightmare.

Having said that. I do firmly believe that SE's need to doing everything that they can to bring home more funding for the Council that they serve and ease up on just asking families and volunteers.

Like it or not many companies do not want to be seen as backing any organization that openly discriminates.
While of course I don't really know the thinking behind all this, but it does seem that the BSA knows and is aware of what's happening and seems OK with it all. This very well might be that the National Board is made up of people who support the policies of the BSA and don't want to see any changes made.
Without this support the BSA runs the risk of losing more members.
Kinda of a catch 22 situation.

The loss of corporate support really makes very little difference at the local level.
However when a company makes the headlines saying it is no longer supporting the BSA, it sometimes makes the parents of Scouts and future Scouts think if they want their kid in the organization.
Of course that track runs both ways.
I've met with parents who whole heartedly support the BSA and are willing to put their hand in their pocket to show their support.
This money most times is given at the Unit or local level.
So it might be said that locally Scouting does well when it loses corporate support.
Ea.

Lets face it.

Summer camp should pay for the camp for the entire year.


All of the camps I have read about getting sold have had poor summer camp programs and low attendance. Tinnerman was sold because it needed an up to code septic system, as I heard, so the council killed it by not promoting it. I know our council as spent a bunch of money on digesting type septic systems for our camps.

With our local BSA camps charging us $100 for a weekend of camping in troop tents...We rarely us our local BSA camps.

Your comment about just a spot in the woods to pitch a tent is valid. That is the way our troop likes it too.

I think the bigger question with respect to the longterm growth and health of the scouting movement in the USA is why do these firms, that want to appeal to a broad segment of the American market, feel they should no longer associate themselves with the BSA?

SA