qwazse

I’m not sure what you mean. Mr. Washington is a career man. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/ymca-of-the-usa-president-and-ceo-kevin-washington-to-retire-after-43-years-of-service-301186198.html BSA currently have a CEO (as opposed to chief scout executive) who was recruited, not promoted. I suspect that it recruited Mosby specifically for the purpose of presiding in the face of multiple legal actions. BSA tends to cycle between “inside” vs. “outside” guys at the top. It seems they agree with you.

Nice to know that someone in this country doesn’t take umbrage at being guides!

No need to apologize for reacting to mine or anyone else’s “devil’s advocacy.” Boots-on-the-ground bluntness deserves it. On the ground, eventually, scouts and alumni ask why scouting costs so much, why their favorite camp is gone, and why it’s still better to come camping with us than to that cabin of their uncle or their cousin or some family “friend.” This is just an attempt to draw out that explanation. If that gets confounded with victim blaming, my apologies. Regarding your question about a professional vs. a volunteer perpetrator, I don’t see much distinction. Predators find their way into positions that are most advantageous to them. The best predators might seek to infiltrate the organization with the best defenses out of whatever perverse desire makes them be predators in the first place. An organization would be hard pressed to screen out all of them from their professional pool, and if their liability is greater when perps are professionals, the organization might simply move to an increasingly volunteer-only model. That could increase their odds of vetting every pro, while still leaving predators content as volunteers to do harm. In that scenario (which is close to BSA’s), the organization is still responsible for a poorly supervised volunteer pool. @DavidLeeLambertRegarding membership stats. I found a couple of sources, and misplaced them! Still working on that.

As did the very first non-reporting victim of every abuser. So, why not sue them? Or their families for not training them to report? Is it because they are somehow innocent by not being part of a corporation? We have warped the word "allowed" until it makes no sense. Find any documentation anywhere where any BSA official grants permission to abuse kids. In fact it forbade it to such a degree that children in their were 10-100 fold less likely to be abused than elsewhere. Let's not whitewash this. BSA is on the line because it has money. Having money is not the same as "allowing this to happen." One could make a better argument that certain publicists have allowed this to happen -- practically giving perpetrators a manual of operations. But, victims can't get at them for it. Show me TCC's plans to provide kids someplace safer, to make them more resilient, better reporters, with more accountable caretakers.

The letter is largely an incoherent regurgitation of facts in evidence. And they are up to interpretation. Saying that funds pay salaries is effectively saying that there is not nearly as much capital readily available as one thinks. Saying that camps are run down implies that they won't get as much value upon resale as one thinks. Saying that it costs money for youths to go to camp is a justification for funding councils more and leaving their resources untouched. (Am I mistaken? Are the survivor's groups promising to build up scholarship funds for kids to go to camps -- not necessarily BSA's -- at a steep discount?) So, pointing out BSA's wastefulness without comparing it to other things (e.g. -- the TCC's fees, etc ...) does not get us anywhere. What's important about the letter ... in 1994, staff should have been trained about reporting sexual harassment. Either this person was not, or this person did not follow his training. I've seen young staff do this repeatedly -- with small infractions. This not to blame the victim. It is to point out that if the victim is not part of the solution, history will repeat itself. But, for organizations, the bigger threat at the time was being sued for libel/slander. And @johnsch322, that's where enabling the victim went straight out the window. I have seen the 21st century BSA provide counseling, but I don't think anyone expected an organization to provide anything of the sort before then. To do so would have meant instant litigation. And, perpetrators can and did argue that a person in counseling wasn't fit to testify ... making achieving convictions even harder on victims and families.

A typo, or his estate filed on the victim’s behalf. When I get a chance to punch in the numbers, I’d probably just peg that at 2010.

From Heritage Reservation (apologies if, since it looks like a draft, this link quickly changes) no vaccine mandate, but a mask mandate: They incorporated the layered mitigation strategy that has been widely circulated. There are exceptions for strenuous activities, when other social distancing is in place, etc ... all of which are pretty consistent with the CDC's recommendation for schools. There are a few moving parts to put in place (meal service, emergency procedures), but there are enough details that we'll be able to walk through everything with parents and kids.

@yknot, that’s more the case for some vaccines than others. For example, I don’t think the response to HPV is any more robust in childhood, but it is offered early because the concern is that the probability of a child being able to decide and get it in advance of any unchecked sexual encounter is low — especially since for 1/5 of girls and 1/20 boys the encounter is unwelcome. @walk in the woods, I think titers will be the wave of the future if costs keep dropping. This could spare quite a few children unnecessary boosters. Or, better, allow for effective timing of boosters. But it won’t happen in our country. We don’t have the cradle-to-grave info-tech to help all patients navigate it.

I think that was one of my pandemic guy's first lessons learned. While a pediatric fever is disconcerting to parents, it translates directly into lost income in parents with terrible jobs. Those same parents have the nation's lowest math literacy so it's difficult to tell them how likely things can go bad by forgoing vaccines. (Since you mentioned hearing loss, here's an article about viruses that drive permanent or temporary hearing loss https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4222184/ .) Furthermore, since many people feel pressured to contain costs by minimizing visits, the pediatric vaccine schedule is aggressive. The sole reason for this is to give a fighting chance to kids whose parents may not bring them back to the clinic often enough for a staggered schedule. A pediatrician friend of ours arranged a less aggressive schedule for her kids, and pulled it off because she was a very good time manager. Most of us simply don't have it together that well to manage frequent returns to the clinics for different shots.

The problem long preceded Wakefield's infamous paper. Some of us didn't notice it because we were in communities who put a lot of stock in medical advice -- and understood risks, roughly. When I first met my pandemic guy in the 80's, he was trying understand why minority parents were often vaccine adverse -- which often led to their children more likely to suffer from preventable disease. This storm has been brewing for some time. But @walk in the woods it was heartbreaking to see families facing autism having their energy wasted spurning vaccines. The very decisive Danish study (https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/full/10.7326/M18-2101 ) was aggressively challenged by correspondents who regurgitated stale facts. The saddest thing that I saw after reading of that article was slightly higher rates of autism in older unvaccinated children. It captures what you've described at the beginning of this century -- as no doubt many parents who had a family member with autism struggled to "protect" their children from the same, and they hoped in vain that not getting vaccinated would do the trick. However, these are our fellow citizens. They dread "big pharma" to the point where they may fall prey to those who need a population debilitated and dependent on the alternative treatments that they claim to offer.

I was on a church board meeting last week. We are asking childcare staff to continue masking regardless of vaccination status. It was a contentious decision, albeit consistent with CDC guidelines.

No. But to be clear ... I am very much in favor of the mRNA vaccines, but that’s only because acquiring immunity to SARS-Cov-2 naturally comes with a 10-20x higher risk of death and disability. The shots are not fun. Neither is going to pay last respects to your neighbor. So, if someone has to take a pass on the shot, I encourage them to find 4 out of every 5 folks around them to get it on their behalf. In general however, vaccine mandates don’t sit well with Americans. Historically we have had more success on a national level by giving folks the information they need and time to process it. That is why you have not and will not see a mandate from Council or your CO. The unit committee however is facing youth and depending on the situation in which those youth live, they have a concern about transmission among unvaccinated and potentially from unvaccinated to vaccinated. We now know that he vaccine slows transmission. So, if a higher portion of folks are immunized we could see 50 to 100x reduction in the risk of disease, disability, and death. So, I could see why a unit my put something of the sort in place. One would still have a personal choice of participating in another unit.

I work a couple blocks from the town cathedral and rectory, boy's high school, girl's high school, and the collegiate center. I all but trip over priests and seminarians on my way to afternoon coffee. The Catholic church right now is seen very positively -- almost better for having their warts revealed.

Around here, it is not uncommon to discover tornado ‘blow downs’ across a trail as if a giants finger pressed down a piled rug. And those are disorienting. I saw the burn scars in the Smokies a few weeks back, and would not want to hike through those ravines. I could only imagine the challenges of a fresh burn in the Rockies.

That’s not quite how unrestricted funds are used. Nicer camps are built with newer unrestricted donations. New restricted donations are often turned down. Old unrestricted properties are used as collateral for new capital or sold to pay pensions or fund a new program. There’s not that much selling of old camps to purchase new. Units love old camps. Without knowing that they were restricted, my scouts sought them out because they were typically primitive, “gently used”, and the rangers were generally very welcoming of whatever service project the scouts would perform.

We'd have to dig through some old forums to find the discussions. But, there has been a shift in policy away from developing restricted assets. Chances are most of the newer camps (or camps with newer expansions) are unrestricted. Camps with restrictions are older because councils can't sell them off. The acquisition land in the face of declining membership has been an ongoing topic of these forums.

Clarification: the parents are the post modern nomads. On these forums this shows up when many of us old guard have to contend with the expectation that everything -- especially advancement is to work for the convenience of the parent. The scouts really don't care. But the parents sure do. And they face post-modern nomadic problems. On our way back from the coffee shop, a lady asked if she could borrow my flip phone. She had just locked her keys in the car -- along with her cell phone -- an needed to call her dad because he had her spare car key. Her house was unlocked so she could wait okay, but she didn't have a land line. I offered to let her keep my phone so she could call work, but she didn't know the number because it was on her phone locked in a car. Her office just relocated that week, so she was just adjusting to the routine! Scouting taught us how to prepare for when things don't work. Youth will still need that. But they will also need to learn what to do when things "work" all too well!

As I've mentioned before, it is more helpful to refer to this broad range young adults as post-modern nomads. That encapsulates their outlook quite accurately. As I went to morning coffee with my grandson on my back, we heard the click and remote-start of a car. I explained to him that in our day we opened the door and sat down before starting the engine. Not sure how much he understood of that, but my scoutmaster minute to you is that these generations are ready to go before the door is even unlocked. A lot of institutions previously relied on generations of members willing to mold to them. A post-modern nomad seeks out organizations who mold to him/her. As a practical matter this means scouting can't grow numerically if it is one thing. I foresee an American Federation of Scouting Organizations of which BSA would be one part, cooperating with others.

@johnsch322, I’m only basing this on the extant victims who I’ve known. And, none of those where in scouting. Their responses toward their abusers and the institutions where it happened are so diverse that I could not put a one-size-fits-all pattern. I first thought, like you, that they’d all be inclined in one direction. But some were unexpectedly content, others were crushed. Of course, I don’t think any were offered some kind of settlement, and perhaps that would change their perspective. Perhaps at the hands of a scout leader changes things. On these forums over the years, we have heard from one or two survivors who became scouters and were strong proponents of the organization. It’s not clear if they joined the class or not. One has said he did not. Regarding the dead or currently disabled, we have the same problem with estimating rates from general population, since most surveys are on adults looking retrospectively, and many victims aren’t there to report. I have only analyzed one survey that queried sexual abuse in children (reported by child or parent), and I’m almost certain those surveys are biased against responding to the abuse question in the affirmative. That’s why it would be useful if someone could tally the present list of complaints by estimated year of incident. Such data would serve as a good research tool.

@johnsch322, that's a problem in and of itself if the TCC has only garnered claims from 10% of survivors. If we believe that we must offer survivors a path to being made whole, then there are two conclusions, I think. Neither are satisfactory: Many victims do not want to be part of this class. Either they've found healing elsewhere, or don't value their injury on a scale that would demand restitution. Victims have remained ignorant of this opportunity. In which case, the the process was not sufficiently thorough. So, supposing 1 million (male) victims among 110 million boys who have ever been scouts puts BSA at a rate of 0.9%, and comparing that to general population of male youth would put its program at 90% effectiveness. That said, I would argue that the process for soliciting victims here was as thorough as most research studies (which typically don't compensate subjects based on their history of abuse). So, if this targeted, incentivized, sweep has only captured a fraction of victims, studies of American males in general may be grossly underestimating rates -- and that is a very chilling thought.

I calculated it based on a cumulative membership number as of 2010 and the results of an historic solicitation for claimants for incidents since the start of scouting up to and including last year. Furthermore, I am not treating 99% effectiveness as "hard", but as a likely upper limit with the suspicion that BSA's strategies might actually be 90% effective, maybe lower. If we think a "fairer" number can be reached by only considering 1950 forward, let's produce it. By what percent should we reduce the denominator? By what percent the numerator (if anyone charted the dates of the claimed incidents chronologically)? This kind of perspective, for me, has nothing to do with money. My grandchild and your children will have to navigate a 21st century landscape of risks. Let's give them a map.

@johnsch322, it's hard to say if and how anyone will know. These things are most successfully tracked in nations with a centralized health system. And, that is simply not us.

There should not be a punishment for crime reduction. No dignity is gained by exacting pounds of flesh from those who reduce crime. On the other hand BSA thought it was more than 99% effective. That's the arrogance I described some months ago. I guess the question then hinges on what the punishment for arrogance should be. And the current answer is long, protracted negotiations. As I've always stated, scouting will happen absent BSA. There is enough literature and media for boys and girls to launch out and do it on their own. Unfortunately, there is also enough literature for people of ill-will to learn how to infiltrate such youth. The 21st century has the potential to be quite violent on our nation's youth. @yknot yeah sure, "Figures lie and lairs figure." But you have to always ask how they've done it. I have not made any attempt to lower the .07% figure to account for suspected false claims. I have not attempted to pick the largest possible denominator. Nor have I made an attempt to cite any literature that came up with extreme background rates. I haven't use Australia's rates in place of America. I've not tried to narrow the population more narrowly than what is BSA's target demographic. If you think I haven't done good enough. That's fine. Do better. Arguing that we can't know the rates isn't good enough. By that logic, one could claim that the background rate is 21%, and BSA 99.6% effective. But, one would be saying it without foundation. I am just trying to provide a foundation ... one that might help improve discernment. How could this help? Let's say in the next 50 years BSA continues and it turns out that 10,000 victims come forward. They might claim some it is due to some improved YP. That they are 5 times better. But, if over the next 5 decades their cumulative youth membership only reaches 500,000, their rate would have increased threefold.

There are several reasons: As I've mentioned before, the survivors who've come forward to me have all been victimized outside of scouting. Same for the predators who I've had the misfortune of meeting. This is the more typical American experience. I think the simplest reason for this is that YPT is not applied across all youth activities. Those of us who've seen our youth march off to sports or church camps should know that this is true. Many attribute BSA's motive as purely fiduciary -- that they are just trying to keep their jobs. But they may also see a loss of their assets as denying youth an opportunity to be 10 to 100x less likely to be victimized. You and others have cited raw numbers of claims as if it is some sort of justification that demands retribution. I am merely putting it in a public health perspective. Comparing rates ... that's what we do. It's how we know that Sars-Cov-2 is worse than Ebola. There are obvious open questions: The .07%, although discovered using an unprecedented media campaign, may still be an underestimate. Likewise, the population percentages might be an underestimate because in most studies, there was no motivation to answer in the affirmative. You pointed out that even under the most confidential of conditions, participants in these surveys may under-report and even suppress memories. A public health perspective does not always translate into criminology. It certainly is far removed from civil litigation. Scouts at risk vary as a function of age, sex and cohort. So, choice of denominator is extremely complicated. There is ongoing independent analysis of BSA's IVF to try to parameterize that. I'm not expecting a paper anytime soon. Sociology is hard. I have not attempted to sway the .07%-ers one way or the other. But I do think that knocking something that is 90% to 99% effective because it is not 100% effective does not put one on a moral high ground. Leverage in negotiation is not moral high ground. My motivation? I want kids to be safer. Show me a strategy that makes them safer and I'll favor it.

K. I'll reply there!