Forums

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. 

This would have been me. I submitted all of my Eagle paperwork on my 18th birthday and never wore the badge on my tan uniform; however, I staffed local council camps for a few years in college and proudly wore it on a green uniform until I turned 21.   Don't tell this guy about square knots or he'll have four rows! (sarc) 😛

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 '  

Here is the crazy thing about camp staff, some will do it for the pittance because it is fun. Hard work? Absofreakinglutely. Fun, great camraderie, making a difference, Yes in deed. How do I know, I VOLUNTEERED to work a week of summer camp since I could not go with my troop. 3 squares, a cot, tshirts, and staff necker and hat. And those items means more to me than money for some weird reason. But I know some staff cannot do that. Heck it was the reason why I didn't work staff when I was in HS: I made more in 1 day working than staff did in an entire week.

And a lack of interest in council events, especially those that used to be held at the camp sold.