qwazse

@InquisitiveScouter, in causal modeling, it is irresponsible to suggest that variables that have not been measured would take precedence without identifying exactly what hasn’t been measured and how much hasn’t been explained. So, for example, if you say the changes in some species could be explained by some non-climate related variable. The argument only holds water if the de-tractor names the causal variable (e.g. vampire zombies) and the degree to which it impacts the outcome (e.g. they sucked the brains of 10 of the 15000 birds examined, although interesting, does not make it a causal factor). In other words, saying ornithologists are taking cheap shots is exactly what someone who can only make cheap shots would say. Anybody with something credible to say would propose a mediator, its magnitude, and any assumptions underlying its proposition.

@Armymutt, unfortunately, we lack data on the probability that abuse would ensue given x nights of camping. In my troop very few parents join us, so it’s a non-issue. The parent who camps more than once is given an application if they aren’t registered already. @MattR, Assuming that any of elder or deacon might serve youth, my church had all of us on the board get the PA clearances. I like the notion of a good old Interpol check. But that is just a part of the equation.

A parent may attend multiple weekend camp outs without being registered, but there comes a point where they do more than keep an eye on their scout. They effectively volunteer with the program. In PA, that would justify background clearances. Our IH and COR make sure we’re on our toes with that. I like parents to go through YPT. It’s far easier for me if they know the rules than if I have to explain the buddy system repeatedly. Registration would be gravy. But it’s incidental to what I need to secure a youth’s well-being.

However, were you going to a friend’s farm or relative’s camp (the more frequent scenario facing most scouts) that check would not be required. Were you to go there for more than three days, BSA would require a registration and (presumably) background check while the friend or relative may not. So depending on the specific activity, Canada will come off more or less strict than BSA’s 72 hour policy. When taking a crew to Seabase Bahamas, I needed a notarized statement from the parent of everyone under 18. This was more to address human trafficking than CSA. The parents being registered was a big help to me on that front. That was for reasons other than screening for CSArs. The fact that we all knew how to hold each other accountable was very helpful. PA’s mandatory reporter training has been helpful in coordinating volunteers across multiple organizations.

Their advocates will have us believe that not all victims of childhood sexual assault are litigants. So, no, by their own argument, we are not blaming survivors, or even a majority of them. If the current body of CSA litigants do comprise the majority of survivors, then BSA would be statistically 10 times as safe as the general population. It can't be both ways ... either yours are the minority of a sea of victims or, were we to investigate an organization with a similar number of youth, we would find 10 nightmares for every one of yours. As I testified elsewhere, my lived experience has been among survivors whose abusers had no part in scouting. So I do see a palpable risk that the diminution of national youth organizations could have serious unintended consequences -- not the least of which being under-served children's increased contact with potential abusers. Tossing around rhetoric about "blaming survivors" does nothing to allay that. As has been pointed out, not all litigants are CSA survivors, so yours may be the case of the day, but on these forums are other reports of claims against the organization. I find them helpful, because they do provoke thought. So, you are welcome to brag about how litigation makes an organization better, how the non-monetary terms will do wonders in making it even more trusted and it's youth safer -- if indeed, you can show some evidence that the process is doing that. But some of us are concerned about all the youth of the nation. Prove a net good for them.

Welcome to the forum. Tell your guide that some strangers on the internet think he/she is making an inappropriate suggestion. It might be appropriate if, while working your ticket, a patrol of scouts pitched in and they invited you personally to get your beads at their CoH. Troops should be youth lead, and any troop that lets any adult pile on their agenda is not a troop, and therefore not one where a reasonable scouter would want to be recognized. You're a district volunteer. Get beaded at a roundtable, an adult cracker-barrel at a camporee, or some other activity geared towards scouters.

Like @MattR, in mine or my kid's units, I have never experienced an absentee COR as you described. (As a youth, my COR introduced me to my Eagle project.) I think every COR who I worked with had a sense that among us might be a ne'er-do-well (let alone pedophile), so due diligence was in order. The word "liability" may not have even been uttered, but "keep our kids safe and leave the building tidy" motivated in the same direction. The most egregious thing about UMC's action seems to me that diligent COs are bearing the brunt of those professionals who knew slack charter's were being signed, but pushed their DE's to generate quantity over quality (also a familiar theme here). Blind rage is only that. If CO engagement really reduces liability, then we need real survey results with real numbers to back it up. It's too easy look at the blogged complaints of scouters here and generalize to the nation. But, supposing that's true. Then the worst thing litigants could do for our nation's youth is to discourage duly diligent CO's from engaging with them. P.S. - I'm still friends with the kids of the DE at the time when I was a youth. It warms my heart to see their pictures of him and his wife.

By that logic … if you were a CO … would you have a youth program AT ALL?

Okay. Answer me this. How does ending a charter agreement absolve a CO of liability? Is there any victims’ attorney out there who said they will take a CO off their list of intended targets if they drop a charter?

Chatting with a scout dad last night … ”I only made it to 1st class, or was it star?” ”Did you have fun?” ”Oh, yeah!”

First the titles are pure doublespeak. BSA has often formed these under different names. A recent was the information technology group. They made a big show of wanting to recruit volunteers throughout the nation. I have the “don’t call us, we’ll call you” on that one. I don’t know how many there are or were.

Or, possibly there was potential for worse abuse in band, and your son was needed there to prevent that. God’s grace has it’s quirks … I’m wondering if this is related to a similar story we were following a few years back. I’ll have to dig.

Let me ease your mind. There will be no global resolution at the CO level. A victim might have a chance of forcing a CO with a large number of accumulated assets to the table. The odds increase with the number of victims. So, I would give you high odds with your Catholic CO of exacting something because the diocese will most likely hold the liability. Going after a volunteer fire department in a distressed community? A few now-impoverished friends who hosted a scouting group for a few years then disbanded? With no liability coverage? A victim might get more with a tin cup. Think of it this way: if COs were estimated to have had consolidated wealth much larger than BSA's, where do you think legal action would have started in the first place.

Son #2's best friend, as he advanced into adulthood, made the conscious decision to no longer be considered as having Asperger's Syndrome. It's not been easy for the young man. But, for him, "fighting that label" gave him a lot of courage. I don't know if, as a scout, I would have been willing to be an Arab American "object of study." I might have been able to say, "Come over for dinner." It wasn't until college (and even after) that I realized that it's sometimes helpful to be a foil against which people could sound out their experience of being discriminated against (or a discriminator). I do know that these conversations among adults sometimes disappoint because nobody is a perfect metaphor for someone else's troubles, but it's really easy to come of like you're trying to be just that. If you're going to counsel this badge, you're going to have to accept that you can only do so much to prepare a scout for it.

My relatives in FL put wheels on their patrol’s Klondike derby sled. Most district events at the troop level should encourage patrol competitions, IMHO.

Regarding obtuse references: This is an open forum. As long as it’s not ad hominem, a poster can be pretty free with their style. Other concepts are elaborated in Forum Support. If something is unclear, ask, and the first one to provide an answer might get an upvote. (Some folks desire them.) About yachts and other expensive hobbies, I daresay that some victims have them, or have friends who do. If Mr. Kosnoff thinks that a night on the water is such an insult to a lawyer’s clients, he could take it up with the Bar Association.

@Eagle94-A1, consider how many EMTs are in an ambulance. It’s not for youth protection. We’ve always sent two adults to transport a scout to clinic.

One man’s loophole = another man’s knot. “No one-on-one contact” is not a loophole so much as it’s the means by which scouts can corroborate evidence of sexual abuse should it occur.

Interesting article on cannabis vaping among youth … https://text.npr.org/1049127183 If you’re recruiting evenly in your community it’s likely that one in 12 of your youth are dealing with this.

@yknot, this summer we had several registered adults attend our council’s summer camp. Two deep, check. One evening, I shadowed two scouts on their first orienteering course. No one-on-one contact, check. To work the course, we had to check in at the program hall and sign out and in. This confirmed that we were maintaining YP per current standards. Plus, it made it easy to log our time. This is the proper and correct interpretation of the G2SS.

Thanks. Will catch up when WIFi improves. Doesn’t anybody do plain text releases anymore?

If you have enough trusted adults to buddy up all the time, do it. It’s not just about YPT. Stupid happens fast, and adults are not exempt from my axiom. A buddy helps mitigate the impact of accidents. Plus, it’s a great way to get to know your fellow adults. On the other hand, put little faith in that system. Two adults could conspire to put live-feed cameras in a shower house … or do worse. I’d rather one adult of integrity in his/her hammock keeping one eye on some scouts than have two sketchy adults with evil designs having time to scheme.

How about if no predator is screened, but a number of parents — not trusting their kids to summer camp with the only two registered leaders available from their unit — do not attend, but rather form their own club but instead camp on a relative’s cabin in Canada (which would not require any RCMP clearance), who hosts them and begins grooming an erstwhile scout or two? My answer is don’t broker in hypotheticals without a devil’s advocate. I don’t believe BSA has looked at all of the CSA data when making the 72 hour rule. I bet there aren’t a lot of instances of abuse by some other kid’s non-registered parent on weekend campouts. But, I bet there are a large number of injury suits by parents who weren’t at camp when an incident happened. Furthermore, I’m more than just guessing that a lot of 71-hour-or-less cub resident camps had something to say in the matter.

@Eagle1993, I’m afraid statistics regarding male vs. female perpetrators are rapidly changing. I don’t want to dis any other youth organizations, but from staff who’ve worked in female exclusive camps, I’ve learned that reigning in grooming/abuse is a challenge. Maybe it’s because when one multiplies 1/5 of perpetrators being female by young females being 3 to 6 times more likely to be victims it doesn’t decrease female youth’s risk of assault in a camp governed mostly by female adults. (And I let my daughter hang out with college students when she was a youth. It was a net positive. I have to admit that I didn’t map out the risks very well.) So, from my perspective all parents need to be vetted equally.

First, let’s be clear that “un-registered” does not equate to “without child abuse clearance.” Worse, most parents, given stricter requirements, would complete their application just before departing for camp. I doubt their clearances would go through instantly. Therefore, until systems are tightened, “registered” will not equal “cleared” for most purposes. Although PA’s clearance laws ease the burden of screening, I don’t get comfort from them. A malefactor can do a lot in the five year gap between filings. Secondly, in other youth-facing projects, we still welcome being accountable to parents while keeping one eye open lest they assume roles towards other youth that they should not. Fresh eyes on the way we do things seems to do more good and little, if no, harm. Thirdly, scouting happens, with or without BSA. Parents who don’t want to bother with paperwork are simply taking their kids camping elsewhere. State parks, friends’ hunting camps, and relatives’ farms abound. I am very concerned about the youth losing access to havens that are ten times as likely to protect them from exposure to abuse. The harsh reality is that, rather than getting a bunch of cleared parents in every unit at camp, we’ll get more units with only two adults spending the night with our scouts. That just sounds like a recipe for unintended consequences. The real issue: how do we get from tenfold less risk to hundredfold? Should we background-check parents as they register their kids? If they aren’t cleared, we would then need a contingency plan for helping them monitor their child’s safety. But, cleared parents would provide one less hurdle to feeling comfortable with them camping with our kids.