When National Policies Collide With Family Values

Scouting’s recent cultural direction is not just an internal policy debate; for many families, it represents a break with the values that once defined the program. This is especially true for faith‑based communities—Christians, Jews, and others whose convictions shape how they raise their children. “A Scout is Reverent” is not a slogan to them; it is a lived expectation.

At national meetings, Scouting leaders still highlight reverence through events like the “Scout is Reverent Breakfast,” reassuring donors and decision‑makers that traditional values remain intact. But the need for such reassurance shows the deeper tension: many families no longer feel that the program reflects the moral and spiritual foundations they trusted.

When national policies touch on sensitive issues of identity, gender, or sexuality, they can come into direct conflict with the beliefs of many sponsoring organizations and the families they serve. Most parents do not debate these changes; they simply choose not to return. Participation declines long before a chartered organization formally steps away.

Even families who are not particularly religious often share similar convictions about identity, childhood, and moral formation. And feel the same rupture when Scouting’s policies shift.

This page reframes the crisis: the first fracture is not institutional, but personal. Families who no longer recognize their values in Scouting quietly withdraw, and only later do their sponsoring organizations feel the impact. Deeply held convictions — moral, cultural, and theological—play a significant role in decisions at both the family and sponsorship levels.

When families stop participating, they stop bringing friends to join them, and they stop sending money. When someone loves something, they become an evangelist for it. When they feel betrayed by that thing, they become activists, encouraging others to stop as well.

DEI: Inclusion or Division?

Scouting’s historical openness never required identity‑based programming. Young people from different backgrounds naturally bonded on campouts, at jamborees, and through shared challenge. The movement’s strength came from a universal brotherhood rooted in common purpose, not in categories.

When foreign Scouts visited our camp, their accents, uniforms, and customs didn’t divide us. They delighted us. Their presence reminded us of the vastness and unity of the Scouting world. That kind of connection never needed a framework to make it happen.

Modern DEI initiatives, however, begin by sorting people into categories of race, gender, or orientation. For many Scouts and Scouters, this feels foreign to the spirit of the movement. Studies conducted by the BSA itself have shown that underrepresentation in Scouting is driven primarily by economics, not prejudice. Families struggling to afford uniforms, fees, and activities face barriers long before identity enters the conversation.

In practice, DEI often encourages treating people according to their differences rather than their shared humanity. That approach runs counter to Scouting’s ideals. A Scout is a whole person—not the sum of demographic traits. Describing anyone primarily through outward characteristics diminishes the very unity DEI claims to promote.

Many parents feel that identity‑based material is out of place in a youth program built on character, service, and outdoor challenge. They want Scouting to remain a space where children grow through shared experience, not through lessons in social categorization.

The Citizenship in Society merit badge — originally introduced as a DEI merit badge — has generated significant discord. It adds yet another indoor Eagle‑required badge and shifts focus away from the experiential learning that defines Scouting.

Sexual Restraint: Clean and Reverent

The Eleventh Point of the Scout Law, Clean, and the Twelfth, Reverent, have long been understood to imply modesty, self‑control, and a sex‑free environment for youth. For generations, Scouting maintained a clear boundary: matters of sexuality were considered private and not part of the program.

Recent national policies, however, introduce topics that many faith‑based families experience as conflicting with those expectations. Discussions of sexual orientation and gender identity now appear in Youth Protection materials, merit badge requirements, and leader training. Pronoun guidance and referral resources related to gender identity are included in official materials.

The required “Digital Safety” training for new Scouts introduces 10‑ and 11‑year‑olds to concepts such as sexting, online grooming, and abuse scenarios. While intended to protect youth, these lessons can feel unsettling to younger Scouts and out of place in what parents believed would be a simple, outdoor‑focused program.

At summer camp, it was quietly decided that Scouts should not complete the “Digital Safety” requirement on site. Young Scouts felt unsettled rather than protected. We knew that some parents would object.

For many religious and traditionally minded families, these changes are not neutral accommodations but shifts in the moral tone of the program. They see them as inconsistent with the sex‑free, values‑focused environment Scouting once guaranteed. Their concern is not about excluding anyone, but about preserving a space where childhood is protected, and where the emphasis remains on character, service, and growth. Not on topics unrelated to the Scouting experience.

Linked and Combined Troops: Broken Promises

Sponsoring organizations were assured that girl troops would always meet separately from boy troops. The nationwide “combined troop” pilot reversed that understanding, leaving many parents uneasy and unsure whether future commitments will be honored.

• Age‑Appropriate Boundaries: Parents of preteen and early‑teen youth see mixed‑gender units as developmentally premature. They worry that normal camp routines become awkward or distracting when boys and girls live side by side.
• Erosion of Single‑Sex Separation: Families trusted the clear boundaries originally promised. The pilot raised the fear that these boundaries may disappear entirely if “combined” becomes the default model.
• Reversal Without Warning: The sudden shift signaled that guarantees can be rescinded without consultation. If this commitment can be reversed, parents wonder what assurances remain reliable.
• Trust and Convictions at Stake: Faith‑based families counted on Scouting to uphold clear, safe spaces for both boys and girls. This reversal undermines the trust that underpins their decision to enroll and support the program.

Because the pilot largely involved troops already functioning informally as coed units, the outcome of the “test” was never in doubt. As of December 15, 2025, units may now operate as fully combined “family troops.” Multiple leaders have reported that troops functioning in a coed manner have experienced inappropriate or uncomfortable situations — the very concerns families raised from the beginning.

Even when linked troops camp on opposite sides of the same site, the shared common areas create a de facto combined unit. This often happens for cost‑saving reasons, but it blurs the boundaries that families believed would be maintained.

Very small troops sometimes operate as combined units out of necessity. While this can increase adult supervision, it does not change the underlying concern: girls deserve safe spaces without the distraction of boys, and boys deserve the same. Single‑sex environments have always been part of Scouting’s strength.

I remember this dynamic from long before girls were admitted to Scouts BSA. As a young Assistant Scoutmaster at a small local camp, a visiting Girl Scout troop arrived for the weekend. The scheduled program quietly shifted to swimming, and bathing suits became the uniform of the day. Even then, it was clear how quickly the tone of a campout can change when boundaries are not maintained.

Transgender Policy

The BSA’s current approach to gender identity places youth according to self‑identification rather than biological sex. For many congregations and faith‑based families, this conflicts with the two‑gender framework they teach and practice. Parents who hold these convictions often struggle to reconcile their beliefs with policies that treat gender as self‑determined.

Many families are also uncomfortable with any program or environment that appears to encourage children to question their gender, adopt new pronouns, or consider identity changes. They worry that such topics introduce ideas their children are not developmentally prepared to navigate, and that they may receive guidance inconsistent with the family’s own beliefs.

Under current BSA policy, a youth who identifies as a different gender is placed in the troop corresponding to that identity. A biological boy who identifies as a girl must be placed in a girl troop, and a biological girl who identifies as a boy must be placed in a boy troop. For many parents, this policy is deeply concerning and difficult to accept.

For church‑sponsored troops, these policies create a difficult and often uncomfortable tension. Although a chartered organization legally owns its unit and may set expectations consistent with its beliefs, national policy still governs registration, advancement, and program structure. This leaves faith‑based sponsors navigating a minefield: they must uphold their convictions while operating within a framework that may contradict them. The result is friction, uncertainty, and a growing sense that Scouting is no longer aligned with the values that once made these partnerships natural and strong.

Sponsorship Loss

The departure of major church sponsors has reshaped the landscape of Scouting. These losses were not abstract disagreements but direct responses to the inclusion policies described above. Councils historically chartered by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter‑day Saints (LDS), the United Methodist Church (UMC), the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod (LCMS), the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), and many local congregations have experienced steep declines.

LDS ended its sponsorship entirely in 2019, removing the single largest chartering partner in BSA history. The UMC dropped from more than 10,000 chartered units in 2020 to roughly 6,600 by mid‑2022 as it shifted to affiliation agreements amid broader denominational tensions. LCMS and PCA congregations saw similar contractions.

Every district and council has since been forced into a scramble to replace these long‑standing religious sponsors. But simply finding new organizations willing to charter units does not resolve the deeper issue. When replacement sponsors embrace or encourage the very policies that prompted the original departures, the underlying conflict remains untouched.

Families notice this. They ask the obvious question: “If my own church believes the BSA cannot be trusted on matters of ethics and child formation, why should I trust the BSA with my children?”

This is the heart of the crisis. Sponsorship loss is not merely administrative — it is a visible sign of a deeper rupture in trust between Scouting and the communities that once formed its backbone.

When Families Walk Away

Leaders at the district, council, and national levels naturally track numbers—how many Scouts re‑register, how many units are added or lost, how membership compares to last year. But those metrics miss the most important reality: the quiet departure of parents and youth who simply stop signing up. And the reasons why.

When a troop folds, it isn’t a financial adjustment or a spreadsheet entry. It is a void in a community. A place where boys and girls once learned leadership, cooked over fires, and found mentors simply disappears.

Families rarely leave with fanfare. They vote with their feet, choosing faith‑aligned or value‑aligned alternatives when Scouting no longer feels like the program they trusted. The loss begins at the family level long before it shows up in a charter renewal report.

This is the true beginning of the crisis: not when a church ends its sponsorship, but when the families inside that church quietly walk away. We keep thinking we can fix it with “relationship management”, “Public Relations”, or “membership drives”.

When Scouting Stops Looking Like Scouting

Many large organizations have learned the hard way that when they signal cultural shifts their core customers don’t share, the result is a rapid loss of trust. Companies that misread their audience often discover that symbolic changes — especially those tied to identity or values — can alienate the very people who sustained them for decades.

Scouting faces a similar dynamic. Its “customers” are families who choose the program because they believe in its traditional emphasis on character, service, responsibility, and reverence. When those families perceive that Scouting is moving away from those foundations, they hesitate to register their children. Trust erodes, and participation declines.

Some recent terminology changes within the BSA appear to be driven more by cultural signaling than by program improvement. Renaming “Shooting Sports” to “Range and Target Activities” does not change safety, training, or youth experience. But it does communicate a shift in institutional priorities.

Organizations that focus on symbolic changes rather than substantive ones often lose the trust of their core participants. Scouting’s long‑term health depends on aligning its policies and language with the families who actually join, support, and sustain the program.

This kind of rebranding mirrors a pattern seen in many businesses that lose touch with their core customers. When an organization focuses on symbolic changes that do not enhance program quality, it risks alienating the very families who have historically supported it.

Scouting has always thrived when its policies and language align with the values of the families who participate. Rebuilding trust requires understanding those families and ensuring that program decisions reflect their expectations and priorities.

This is not about excluding anyone. Scouting must be open to all who are willing to commit to the Scout Oath and Law. A Scout’s personal beliefs, faith, or sexuality should not matter. What matters is their willingness to learn, serve, and live the principles of Scouting.

By focusing on methods and shared values rather than identity categories, Scouting can replace division and discord with understanding, continuity, and a program that feels familiar, meaningful, and true to the principles that have long sustained it.

Relationship with the US Military

Historically and continuing today, the United States Military stands shoulder‑to‑shoulder with Scouting.

• .Military bases sponsor Scouting units for service families, including overseas councils such as the Transatlantic Council and lodges like Black Eagle.
• Eagle Scouts enter the military one rank higher.
• National Jamborees have long relied on military logistics, infrastructure, and personnel support..

This relationship has never been symbolic. It reflects shared values: discipline, service, leadership development, and character formation. For more than a century, this alignment required no formal agreement, only mutual recognition of purpose.

Recently, however, reports have emerged suggesting that the federal government is discussing or reconsidering aspects of this long-standing relationship, as described in the linked reporting below. Observers have raised several concerns, including:

• A perceived decline in merit‑based, character‑focused programming
• Cultural initiatives that some feel diverge from traditional Scouting values
• Policies that, as reported in the article, some families believe reduce the program’s appeal to boys
• A broader shift from cultivating character to adopting institutional priorities

Whether these concerns ultimately prove justified is less important than the fact that they are being raised at all, because long-standing institutional relationships rarely question themselves without cause.

It is difficult for the BSA to thrive when it introduces programs or cultural frameworks that do not align with the values of its core participants (youth and parents) or its long‑time supporters (including the U.S. Military).

To link to a news article about this emerging issue, click here. To view a PDF capture of the article, click here.

When Organizational Direction Diverges from Family Values

Demographic research consistently shows that families who are more religious, family-centered, and committed to traditional structures tend to have more children. These same families are also more likely to seek programs that emphasize character, service, responsibility, and reverence.

Many of the BSA’s recent cultural and policy shifts appear aimed at appealing to groups that, statistically, as a population, have fewer children and are less likely to participate in programs built around uniforms, outdoor challenge, and traditional values. Over time, this creates a growing misalignment between the BSA’s institutional direction and the families most likely to join and sustain Scouting.

When an organization’s internal ideology diverges from the worldview of its natural constituency, participation declines. This demographic and cultural mismatch is one of the forces driving the BSA’s continuing membership losses.

Conclusion

Restoring Scouting’s strength requires revisiting policies that conflict with the convictions of the families who have historically supported it, particularly those shaped by faith, tradition, and a clear moral framework. Only by realigning the program with these expectations can Scouting regain the trust of the people in the pews, who have long been the heart of its sponsorship and membership. Without this realignment, it is difficult to imagine how the BSA can recover its numbers, its standing, or its place in the lives of American families.