Find the calendar you want to subscribe to, then click the copy icon on the right ().
Step 2: Subscribe to that URL with your calendar
Generally, you’ll need to locate in your calendar product where you can paste an iCal-feed URL. Below is specific guidance for Outlook.com, Google Calendar, and iPhone.
Reflecting this site’s insistence that all of BSA must serve the base, this analysis measures endowment size by its impact on each council’s youth member:
That is, we take the total endowment, pull 4%, which is fairly common and typically a sustainable annual pull, then divide that 4% by the number of Scouts in that council. That tells us how many dollars the endowment might produce per Scout.
Conquistador Council is by far the most lucrative, potentially providing $5,452 per Scout. (It only withdrew 1.5%, or $2,633 per Scout, in 2023. Even with this commendable restraint, this supplied 59% of the council’s 2023 income!)
All other councils varied between $779 and $0 per Scout.
This only includes “fund 3” endowments. In BSA’s accounting scheme, fund 3 describes endowments controlled by councils.
Independent endowments are not on this list.
For example, Circle Ten Council is the third largest by youth-member count. It reports $0 of Fund 3 funds, but its independent endowment has $58.5 million as of the end of 2022 (source). That would be $112 per Scout of annual taking at 4%, although it was able to disburse 5.2% in 2022.
What makes an endowment independent? I am uncertain on the precise definition, but I suspect it must satisfy two conditions:
Exists as a corporation independent of the council it benefits.
Its bylaws do not give the beneficiary council control of the endowment’s board of directors.
Circle Ten’s independent endowment is likely ideal in BSA’s current environment. Presumptively dedicated to the sole benefit of Circle Ten Council, it gives the council a hedge against the #1 existential threat to the future of Scouting, which is BSA’s national organization.
Also missing may be more discretionary funding sources, such as episodic grants or recurring donations from foundations that benefit many causes.
Form 990s
Many of these numbers are generally available on IRS Form 990 filings.
Search on the council at https://apps.irs.gov/app/eos/ or https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/. ProPublica sometimes has more recent filings than the IRS, and its UI is better. You’ll find separate 990 filings for the council and its trust fund when they are separate corporations.
Membership numbers and council class
These are in the underlying data, which was provided by confidential sources. (I have many confidential sources spread throughout national and councils. You are all very appreciated. You are helping inform vital improvements.)
Membership counts are from the end of June 2024.
Council classes are likely as of 2024. The meaning of classes is based on the council’s annual budget. This unreferenced breakdown is from Wikipedia (source):
Class 100 – >$7 million
Class 200 – $4-$7 million
Class 300 – $2-$3 million
Class 400 – $1-$2 million
Class 500 – less than $1 million
I think the numbers have increased since this was added to Wikipedia. Sampling class-500 councils suggests several have budgets over $1 million.
Biased by low member counts
If you look at the underlying data, you’ll note council-class numbers of top councils (i.e., highest potential per-youth endowment takings) are of small councils. Of the top 50 councils, only three are class 100!
It is possible that a good deal of the councils with more lucrative endowments have undergrown their endowments.
This could provide a safe space to retool and regrow. But it could encourage complacency. If a council’s employee count reduces proportionally to youth-member decreases, then a higher percentage of employee compensation is funded by the endowment. While this protects salary lines, it creates a perverse incentive to preserve that stability by avoiding growth.
Your composition has changed: You’re smaller, and some of the old guard departed. You can be quite effective!
You’ve got to save Scouting from its #1 existential threat: A culturally rotted, poorly performing national organization, that sees itself as its own customer, which is winning a decades-long war of attrition against the base.
To do this, you’ve got to use the Konami code and make some bold decisions uncharacteristic of past NEBs.
(Technical note: Some things I speak to might be delegated to other bodies, like the National Executive Committee. Because of BSA’s precarious state and decades of BSA’s failures to correct itself, I feel it’s important for the NEB to set some expectations directly.)
Two key measures of NEB effectiveness
In 2023, the NEB approved a five-point plan to start turning BSA around. This plan has a lot of great things. But it doesn’t directly address two issues and a method that I find so foundational, that without them, it’s unclear if this turnaround can succeed.
The two issues: Ending bigotry and driving away those with bad ideas.
The method: Providing uncharacteristically clear direction to the national bureaucracy.
Priority 1: Ending bigotry
The NEB must make a shot across the bow and finally end BSA’s rampant bigotry, killing harmful policies concerning girls, gays, and God. The NEB’s history of piecemeal, reluctant steps, sometimes requiring chiding from its own leader, are unacceptable, insufficient.
The NEB must take concrete steps to affirm that this culture will change.
Ending bigoted policies–my prior point–is a big part of this.
The other part is to affirm a culture of accountability for the national organization. Our fundamental accountability measure for all national roles or committees must be, “What value do you produce for families, Scouts, and unit-level volunteers?” If we can’t find a straightforward, net-positive answer to that question, then we must have a time-boxed proposal to get there. If neither can happen, then we abolish the committee or role or seek the net positive by replacing those in the role or committee.
This will set new expectations. For example, BSA’s lack of a public apology for or public repudiation of its 2023 war on Cub Scout camping shows this is considered acceptable conduct for its bureaucrats. With a new expectation of producing value for the base, wars against the membership will, for the first time, be considered unacceptable conduct, initiating correction to seek the net positive.
This also stops throwback reactionaries from morally bankrupting BSA. Allowing them to use BSA as a tool in their culture wars was always harmful to the base. If we’re serious about putting an end to gold-loopers’ attacks on the base, then we’ve neutered the throwback reactionaries!
This will cause some to feel uncomfortable. It will induce departures. Those preferring an environment of unaccountability or of tolerating uselessness will leave.
Lesson learned from the United Methodist Church
If we make poor performers or those with bad ideas feel uncomfortable, we’ll get departures. That may cause some disruptions. But it’s necessary. The United Methodist Church (UMC) just showed us why.
The UMC had bigoted, anti-LGBTQ+ policies for decades. Naively, many in the UMC believed that we could reform those policies while appeasing our bigots. We tried this for decades and failed. Not only did this naivete delay reform, the bigots kept jabbing the knife deeper.
The BSA is in a similar position. We’ve wasted decades coddling poor performers and those with bad ideas. This appeasement has brought us to our knees. If we want a viable BSA, the appeasement must end. But we may have to shrink to grow.
You may counter with, “But wait, [group x] and [group y] already fled. Isn’t that enough?” No. Their culture remains firmly in place. National continues to not give an inch on its performance problems or its bigotry. More departures are needed to right this, and these departures can be encouraged by the NEB setting clear and appropriate expectations.
Let’s talk about departures: Who cares? Really, who cares? Some people at national need to find a different way to serve humanity. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out! In my campaign to put sunlight on the national organization’s manifold sins, I have come across so many good, caring, competent, rational people who could be shoo-ins for vacated roles. The easiest part is abolishing or refilling vacated roles! (Related: To succeed at re-filling roles, national has to stop using gold loops as a reward to long-term loyalty. Instead, national must seek competent innovators from all levels of tenure.)
This will pivot the NEB from being a board of bystanders
The NEB has two key jobs:
Appoint and supervise CEOs.
Set corporate strategy.
Instead of doing those jobs well, or at all, prior NEBs were mainly boards of bystanders.
Kowtowing to the bureaucracy
Evidence comes with decades of terrible CEO appointments.
Instead of appointing competent leaders to the CEO role, past NEBs kowtowed to BSA’s bureaucracy, limiting its CEO candidate pool to former District Executives surfaced by BSA’s awful career system. Thanks to this, the NEB caused decades of harm by saddling BSA with CEOs who were visionless bureaucrats with weak leadership skills.
More evidence of poor past NEB performance comes with how it declined to set sound strategy, instead fomenting a leadership vacuum. This vacuum handed the national organization’s rudder to its moribund bureaucracy and to throwback reactionaries.
The bureaucracy’s hand on the rudder is demonstrated by how BSA’s programs, advancement system, uniforms, and more have drifted listlessly for decades, now confusing and bloated with unchecked accumulation of random ideas. Yeah, yeah, I know, a lot of responsibility for these failures nominally falls on program committees, but since they historically are puppets of or allies with the bureaucracy, the fingers point back to the bureaucracy.
As long as bigotry and tolerance of poor performance still have the upper hand in BSA, we should expect continued brand damage:
The NEB must stand up to the moribund bureaucracy
Back to my point: If the NEB is serious about its mission, in addition to setting clear direction on ending bigotry, it will stand up to the bureaucracy, setting expectations that its lousy performance will no longer be tolerated. This starts by denying a proposal to stall elimination of the coed ban.
Some background: Reliable informants convey that the NEB is set to end the coed ban this week! But the NEB still plans to kowtow to the bureaucracy which predictably is asking for it to stall reform: A useless pilot program is proposed. Given BSA’s normal practices, this should stall reform at least another year.
BSA’s pilot programs are useless, bureaucratic stalling exercises. In recent times, all major knowledge produced by BSA’s pilot programs, if any (!), could have been predicted by a competent professional or volunteer. But recent pilot programs seem to produce so little. Examples:
The more recent pilot program for coed Cub Scout dens is notable for the absence of significant changes in how Cub Scout packs operated.
Instead of pilot programs, we need competence.
And we should have that competence: With coed older-youth programs for 56 years, BSA has had plenty of time to figure out coed. It has had coed Cub Scouts since 2018 (sorry, rulemongers, virtually all packs flouted national and ran coed programs since 2018!). And many troops have chosen the moral high road, flouting BSA’s separate-but-equal regime for girls, instead running undercover coed operations. BSA already has all it needs to navigate full coed across every program.
But let’s suppose I am wrong? (I’m not, but let’s pretend.) BSA has unlimited phone-a-friend to other USA youth-serving organizations, nearly all of which are fully coed or permit it. We also have unlimited phone-a-friend to all of BSA’s WOSM peers, which have been fully coed for decades.
The NEB’s repudiation of the coed ban must be full, final, and immediate. The bureaucracy has no reason to stall this. If the repudiation is not full, final, and immediate, then we’re inviting bigots and some bureaucrats maintain control. Back to the proposed bureaucratic stalling tactic–the pilot program–it is an invitation for those with bad ideas to sanitize their folly by clinging to any part of the coed ban they can save. For example, it wouldn’t surprise me to see them warp the pilot program to validate single-gender patrols. The current coed-related rules applicable to Cub Scouts or Venturing are already an overreach (I have a future article developing on this). Any post-coed-ban standards that go beyond those are almost certainly evidence of uncorrected cultural rot.
How each community navigates its coed experience must be up to that community, unencumbered by even a single vestige of the separate-but-equal regime for girls.
Conclusion
BSA is at its most fragile point in its history. Suffering a recent, catastrophic membership loss, teetering on a second bankruptcy, reeling from decades of appeasing those with bad ideas and poor performance, and with programs and services badly needing a cleaning up and realignment, it’s crucial for the NEB to take a shot across the bow.
The NEB must set clear expectations now, in a visceral way, that bigotry, bad ideas, and poor performance are no longer welcome in the national organization. It starts this by deleting all bigoted policies (the separate-but-equal regime for girls and religious bigotry) in a full, complete, and final way, which importantly includes denial of bureaucratic stalling tactics (pilot programs).
I have yet to write about this, but James E. West, the first Chief Scout Executive, created the original language that is behind today’s Declaration of Religious Principle (DRP). When understood through the lens of the USA’s Third Great Awakening, it’s unlikely James meant for the DRP to become a ban on atheists and agnostics or to be as in-your-face as it is today. ↩︎
I was Cubmaster of a large pack for 5 years. The biggest waste of my time, in terms of return on value, was re-recruiting departed Scouts.
What I learned:
I usually cannot fix the problem. The families almost always dodged the truth about why they left. (I am in Texas, where it’s culturally considered better to tell a polite lie than to share truth.) Therefore, the problems I thought I could solve were usually phony. Best way to flush time down the toilet? Solving phony problems.
Rarely did they come back, and when they did, it was not due to anything I did. I can only think of two comebacks associated with my pack, which peaked at 137 Scouts. One is still with the program, with my son in his troop, and the other dropped a year after returning.
Problems are best solved proactively. I am pretty sure most of our losses were due to two reasons: 1. Too many other activities, which is hard to solve. 2. Poor den program.
On poor den program, not supporting my Den Leaders enough may have been the #1 thing I would have changed if I had a do-over. The den leaders weren’t unsupported–they were trained, and the pack-level program supported den formation and strengthening–but I didn’t do enough commissioner-style supports of Den Leaders.
We had many awesome den leaders, and I am so thankful for them. They did so much to cause a great program and retention. I feel bad for those who may have been lost and I didn’t assure they had a compass.
In 2018 and 2019, BSA allowed girls into its boys-only programs. This inclusion was accompanied by a ban on coed Cub Scout dens or coed Scouts BSA troops.
The coed ban is specious: It rests on misinformation and on sexist, racist, and harmful folklore. Its pile-on effects reduce youth safety, harm members, and harm the program. In its campaign to perpetuate the ban, BSA gaslights families and volunteers. This and more signals cultural rot, which is catastrophic to an organization that protects youth and develops leaders.
To end these harms, restore trust, promote equity and inclusion, be relevant to today’s families, and live the values it teaches, BSA must drop the specious coed ban. This allows a choice of coed or single-gender. It also must correct the culture that allowed it to implement and perpetuate the ban.
The ban can and should be dropped rapidly. The change must not be delayed with a pilot program.
(Editorial comment: Sacred cows are tasty. Apparently bylaws are sacred cows. Many comments are reacting to sentiments not expressed in this article. To be clear: It is good to document practices. It’s not good to turn them into formal bylaws.)
While formal policy’s certainty may be appealing, it is a bad idea for Scout units. (Note: I use “bylaws” and “policy” interchangeably. I mean 1. a set of written rules that are 2. formally adopted by the adults of a Scout unit that 3. seek to generally regulate a Scout unit.)
Bylaws turn the unit committee into a legislative body. This distracts from the committee’s role as a working group.
Bylaws encourage rule-worshipping and administration. They discourage creativity and leadership.
Let me re-emphasize something: BYLAWS ARE ANTI-LEADERSHIP! They are about rules and processes, the domain of administration. Steering a unit towards a compliance regime is steering it away from leadership-mentoring opportunities.
Bylaws demean volunteers and youth leaders, saying they should not be trusted.
Bylaws will eat you up. “But I just want one policy!” Once you let the genie out of the bottle, getting to “extensive policy” is fast: due to the golden-hammer effect, more problems will be “solved” by more policy.
Conscientious units don’t need bylaws. BSA already has plenty of rules and regulations. Gray areas can be managed through the lens of the Scout Oath and Law. In rare cases where these aren’t enough, documenting one’s practices are sufficient. In extremes, the chartered organization might weigh in.
Some mistakenly think Scout units need bylaws because all organizations need them. No, because Scout units are not organizations. They are a part of their chartered organization.
Finally, BSA recommends against bylaws. In the Cub Scout Leader Book, 2018 edition, page 94: “Creating a set of bylaws or operating procedures is not necessary; all packs operate by the guidelines described in this manual.”
Bylaws for Scout units are counterproductive. They create costs, they don’t solve problems better than documented practices, and they have substantial risks.
Alternatives to bylaws
OK, no bylaws or policy. What else can you do? Three things:
Use the Scout Oath and Law. Those are the best lens for working through challenges.
Use what BSA already provides. Don’t reinvent the wheel. BSA already has a bloated corpus of rules and recommendations. The last thing any volunteer needs is more rules.
Document your practices. You do not need legislation to document practices. For example, if your unit’s practice is that campout registration deadlines are the Sunday before the campout, then the camp chair might write this down in a shared document.