Counting centres and their members

1 Types of Shambhala Groups and Centres

Using administrative data, there are several ways of assessing how many centres or groups are active in Shambhala. Each may tell a different story or a different facet of the whole story. For example, we can look at activity levels in different ways, such as:

by whether a centre or group is marked as “active” in the SDB (an administrative designation based on leadership communication with SGS),
by whether a group or centre has people affiliated with it (See Section 2 for a year-to-year comparison),
by whether the group or centre offers programs requiring registration, and
by whether people affiliated with a centre or group register for programs offered at any location (e.,g., including online or at other centres). (See Section 4 for a year-to-year comparison of these two measures of activity level.)

Table 1

	Status and type	Centres	Members	% of total
Active members and centres 2025 year-end snapshot
	Shambhala Meditation Centre	90	4,223	70%
	Shambhala Meditation Group	177	631	10%
	Shambhala Online and Global	2	916	15%
	Practice Centre	14	302	5%
	Other	23	1	0%
	Retreat Place	2	0	0%
Total	—	308	6,073	100.0%

At the end of 2025, 65 Shambhala Centres and 49 Groups were recorded as active. Currently 18 members are affiliated with centers that are marked as dissolved in the SDB.

Table 2

	Status and type	Centres	Members	% of total
Active members and centres 2024 year-end snapshot
	Shambhala Meditation Centre	89	4,909	74%
	Shambhala Meditation Group	178	1,206	18%
	Shambhala Online and Global	2	166	3%
	Practice Centre	14	343	5%
	Other	23	1	0%
	Retreat Place	2	0	0%
Total	—	308	6,625	100.0%

Between 2024 and 2025, 750 members who were affiliated with dissolving centers were marked as members of Shambhala Global, leading to a jump from around 166 members in 2024 to 916 in 2025.

Table 3

	Status and type	Centres	Members	% of total
Active members and centres 2023 year-end snapshot
	Shambhala Meditation Centre	89	5,116	75%
	Shambhala Meditation Group	178	1,201	18%
	Shambhala Online and Global	2	161	2%
	Practice Centre	14	342	5%
	Other	23	1	0%
	Retreat Place	2	0	0%
Total	—	308	6,821	100.0%

This table provides a context for the qualitative findings in the survey.

The 916 members who are affiliated with Shambhala Global Services (SGS) in 2025 includes the 166 people who were previously affiliated with SGS plus 750 who were previously affiliated with groups or centres that have now dissolved. The survey data indicates that members who do not relate to a center tend to rate their sense of belonging and willingness to recommend Shambhala as low. The Societal Mirror has not included direct questions about how how people could reconnect to a Shambhala community, whether personally or by digital means

2 Counting urban groups and centres by size of membership

Land centers and an online-only group are excluded from this analysis, as they do not fit into the size categories.

Grouped bar chart comparing the count of active Shambhala centres and groups in four size categories — Small, Medium, Large, and Largest — across three years (2023, 2024, 2025). Centre size categories appear on the x-axis; count of active centres on the y-axis (maximum 80). Three colour-coded bars per category represent each year, with counts labeled above each bar. The number of small centres held steady over the last two years, while medium-sized centres declined in each successive year, making them the most vulnerable size category. — Figure 1

Medium-sized centres have declined each year over the three-year period shown, while small centres held steady in the last two years. The Large and largest centres have been more stable across the period. Some changes may simply be due to centres changing size due to membership gains or losses.

Grouped bar chart comparing the number of active members affiliated with Shambhala centres in four size categories — Small, Medium, Large, and Largest — across three years (2023, 2024, 2025). Centre size categories appear on the x-axis; member counts on the y-axis (maximum 3,000). Three colour-coded bars per category show each year's totals with counts labeled above each bar. Small and medium centres shed roughly 29% of their members, closely tracking the loss of centres in those categories. Large centres grew slightly in both count and membership, while the Largest centres lost about 15% of members even though their centre count stayed the same, suggesting a retention problem at the top end of the size spectrum. — Figure 2

Small and medium centres lost roughly 29% of their members over the period, closely tracking the decline in the number of centres in those categories. Large centres grew slightly in both count and membership, while the largest centres shed about 15% of their members even as their count remained unchanged, suggesting a retention problem at the upper end of the size spectrum.

As can be seen by comparing Figures 1 and 2, while the number of smaller centres greatly outweighs the number of larger centres, the very great majority of members are affiliated with the larger centres.

3 Global Community Council Regions

The Global Community Council (GCC) regions is a community governance body representing Shambhala center and group members. Representation is clustered in ‘constellations’ reflecting region and/or language. See the map on the Membership page. Membership declines are spread across all the GCC regions.

Stacked horizontal bar chart showing the number of active centres in each GCC constellation, broken down by centre size category. GCC constellation names appear on the y-axis; count of active centres on the x-axis. Four size categories — Small, Medium, Large, and Largest — are colour-coded and stacked within each constellation's bar, with numeric counts labeled inside each segment. The size composition varies considerably across constellations. Combined with the membership-loss figures shown earlier, this chart illustrates that all constellations are experiencing a membership retention problem. — Figure 3

The size composition of centres varies considerably across GCC constellations. When combined with the overall member count trends, the picture shows that no constellation is immune to membership pressure — all are managing losses of members or centres, or both.

Grouped horizontal bar chart showing year-over-year change in the number of active centres within each GCC constellation. Constellation names appear on the y-axis; count of active centres on the x-axis. Two colour-coded bars per constellation compare the prior year and the current year, with counts labeled beside each bar. Most constellations have fewer centres than a year ago: only 3 constellations added new centres, 8 lost at least one centre, and 6 remained unchanged. — Figure 4

This shows that only 3 of the constellations have added new centers, 8 have lost centers and 6 have remained the same.

4 Activity level as an indicator

Faceted stacked bar chart with two side-by-side panels for 2023 and 2025. Each panel contains two bars: "Centres Offering" programs and "Members Participating" in programs anywhere. Bars are stacked by centre size (Small, Medium, Large, Largest), colour-coded from dark to light brown, with counts labeled inside each segment and totals above each bar (y-axis maximum 130). In both years, more centres have members participating in programs offered elsewhere than are hosting programs themselves. From 2023 to 2025 the count of Offering centres fell while Participating counts stayed more stable, showing that local programming capacity is declining faster than overall member engagement. Smaller centres account for a disproportionate share of external participation, likely because they have less capacity to host programs of their own. — Figure 5

Table 4

	Size of Centre / Group	2023		2025
	Size of Centre / Group	Centres Offering Programs	With Members who Participate	Centres Offering Programs	With Members who Participate
	Small (0-20)	15	46	17	42
	Medium (21-60)	29	35	24	35
	Large (61-99)	16	20	14	20
	Largest (100+)	12	13	12	13
Total	—	72	114	67	110

Comparing 2023 and 2025, the total number of centers are roughly comparable. The big difference to note is between the number of centres that offer programs and the number of centres whose members participate anywhere. In both years, the small centres account for a disproportionate share of external participation, likely because they have less capacity to host programs of their own. What the data suggest is that individual members of centres are attending programs at other centres as well as their own.