yknot

The reason for that is statistically men abuse children at rates much higher than women. Women do abuse, but it's usually to please or enable abuse by a controlling male counterpart or an older teen situation. The most horrific abuse scenarios frequently occur in settings where women are less likely to be present -- church, scouting, sports.

It seems to me that above and beyond compensation or perhaps equal to it, many claimants also want to ensure that if BSA continues it will create a next order youth protection program. They don't want what happened to them happening to other children. I'm not seeing where the current plan addresses that other than a few bones and some promises? I wonder how much of a role that might play for claimants. The TCC does seem to keep trying to keep that on the table.

I got that impression too although it's hard to tell. That would be extremely weird if not concerning if UMC/RC churches were somehow committed to helping BSA grow membership for financial not philosophical reasons. Especially without any clarity regarding what is happening with youth protection. And it would put BSA back in bed with a religious organization a la LDS, which was problematic. Not to mention those two denominations have different views on some key topics. Or... this may mean something else entirely.

It might not be a clear absolute power but there are factors that can bring about closure and sale regardless. A church that is already struggling would have a hard time affording insurance outside of the group rates obtained by the conference for example. It is not 100% clear who owns church properties and it can get very tricky, especially in towns where tax assessors are questioning nonprofit status of things like parsonages if they are rented out for income. If UMC is offering to put money in, there must be some strategic plans to unload white elephant properties.

I don't know how UMC oversight works but in my area there is a state conference that oversees the individual congregations. That Council has had the power to consolidate and sell properties to some extent. There are a number of failing churches with valuable property. It seems that those properties could be sold off to save other functional congregations. Not that I'd want to see that happen -- they are all historic buildings to start -- but many of these denominations are in the same boat as BSA is with camps. BSA has excess camp properties to serve a membership level that no longer exists. Many of these churches have the same issue -- buildings for people who are no longer there in any number.

There are logistics involved with learning how to function optimally in an organization when you are defined as being in a racial or gender category or trying to survive as a member of. I was involved with a Black student organization at university and they met to address everything from how to make sure students from families with no transportation could get home for winter break to dealing with overly attentive campus security. It's a problem when one kid heading to his dorm at night gets stopped six times while his friend heading the opposite way across campus doesn't get stopped at all. It's annoying. They want to talk about it and change it. There is nothing wrong with that. It's stuff you or I can't even relate to.

If I may, I think you're getting hung up something that's maybe not as significant as you think it is. Instead of calling it an affinity group or whatever just think of it as subcommittees: Engineering, Finance, LGBTQ. That's how I view it. Everybody has a specific task to work on and bring back to the group.

I don't think the relationship has been at all transactional for most COs. Most of them have sponsored units for various altruistic reasons -- they want to support scouts or youth or the community. Most of the small church COs around here are sponsoring units where hardly anyone in the unit even goes to that church so its been for the greater good. I think it's presumptous for anyone to think that a struggling CO will risk bankruptcy itself for the privilege of continuing to sponsor a unit for BSA. BSA is treating the CO relationship as a business relationship and not a fellowship because at it's heart, that's what the relationship really is for BSA. COs aren't backing away from youth or their communities -- they are simply backing away from the BSA .

My point is that there is no real upside for a CO to be involved in scouting. The upside is all on the BSA end.

How does that work? Do the scouts lug the trees from cars and the adults chip them? Also, while adults are able to handle power tools around scouts, COs around here would never let anyone other than a contracted tree service do wood chipping on their property due to liability issues. Adults do it on work days at camps and such but the COs don't necessarily know... One of the COs I'm affiliated with has a retreat camp property of its own that we have access to and they won't let anyone chip -- they get wood chips donated by tree services. Interesting how different things are depending on where you are.

That's truly admirable but others realize you can't preach anything if the doors are shut. Right now BSA's business model is hinged on failing COs risking closure to sponsor a unit. Churches can meet a mission of youth ministry without being part of BSA's business model.

In general of course, but individually that's kind of a given? My kids intuitively know that if anyone threatens them, whatever that threat is, it will also face me and hopefully die a painful death. But -- myself, school teachers, coaches, 4-H leaders -- no one greets people at the doors of their activity saying that you'll die if you mess with these kids.

I think you're lucky.

That is very impressive but do you ever wonder what is wrong with us if we are involved with an organization where we think we actually need to say that before we head out with kids in our care?

It just highlights the need to have the co-ed troop option available because that would solve something that is only going to come up more and more frequently. Many units are operating that way in practice anyway, so there is not much BSA precedent to stand on when so many councils are already "looking the other way." There is no way for BSA to "win" on this issue, even if the mom should lose a lawsuit.

I was referring to a couple specific posts on this thread, but that is not exactly a novel perspective in scouting. I've heard it before and seen it elsewhere.

For the past several decades, witha few dips up or down, the US child population has remained relatively constant. During that same time period the child death rate overall has decreased dramatically. It's not just a percentage drop, it's an actual numerical drop. So fewer children die today vs. say 1970 or 1990. During that same time period, while it has also declined, death by MVA has remained the leading cause of childhood deaths, even with seatbelts. It still remains a significant cause of death. Deaths from other kinds of unintentional accidents have declined and become less significant. If you parse out infant deaths, which includes such things as premature delivery, crib death, congenital causes that are not relevant to active childhood activity, it becomes even more significant. The American Academy of Pediatrics has been focusing on unintentional childhood deaths for decades -- since the 1950s -- and has a lot of supporting data. You can also dive deeper into statistics on particular activities. Bicycle deaths among children are lower in those states that have pediatric helmet laws. Youth sports have addressed some injury concerns surrounding concussions. I don't hear anyone in youth sports bemoaning the fact that safety requirements are cutting down on youth concussions. This is a very odd perspective to me in scouting.

I'm not exactly sure what you are stating because I'm not sure what your "not true" relates to. I think we're agreeing that the decline in child death rates due to accidents has declined dramatically since 1970? Far fewer kids overall are dying today than in 1970 despite the youth population being essential static during that time frame.

I have also been involved in aspects of the horse industry and that is indeed a world that has changed dramatically, especially racing. However, since you bring it up, two aspects of that world that touch youth and are relevant to scouting -- 4-H and US Pony Club -- have done a much better job of adapting to change. Those youth organizations have modified many aspects of their programs, tried to make involvement more affordable, and have found ways to retain and involve graduate young adults and older alumni. I have always thought that Pony Club is a particularly interesting comparison because although it operates on a minute scale compared to scouting, it has many similarities. It is a Britsh export for one, also developed around a military ideal. It further has a ratings system, peer involvment, high risk activities, and character development and service components. Over the past couple decades, its youth membership has increased rather than declined despite the key ingredient -- horses, and in particular the backyard horse -- melting away from the American landscape. 4-H is also doing pretty well despite the odds with membership. I had hopes at the beginning of the bankruptcy that BSA would finally be forced to turn itself inside out and reorganize around youth and units. Make some really innovative changes. Get some new leadership. Fix some of the problems that seemed easy to fix. The past two years have squelched that hope in me. It seems like the response to the bankruptcy has been the same operating procedures, the same leadership and outlooks, the same insular viewpoints, and some dismaying un-scoutlike behavior.

I guess the answer is that a lot more of us didn't get to be adults. Enhanced safety considerations have caused an exponential decline in childhood death rates. I know we get nostalgic about how things were when we were young, but so much of it, like playground wood chips and bike helmets, is just belated common sense.

That's not surprising because I think this all depends in the council you/were are in. As someone who was involved more on the committee side for years, councils are often unable to keep track of paperwork. Lost recharter packets, lost Eagle Scout applications, lost adult applications, lost training records, no matter whether in hard copy or e format. Our latest council after a series of mergers is somewhat better but in many cases records before fairly present day are simply lost.

Gotcha. It makes sense that the Methodist Men would remain hopeful that something might still be worked out.

It's always good to have more information but it seems like the article that was posted is actualy far more indepth and complete than the press release on the MM site. What was your point of contention?

And what to my wondering eyes should appear...

This is the kind of question that Cynical Scouter would have had an opinion on and been able to parse out some scenarios. People didn't always agree with him and he admittedly would sometimes wield his pen more like a scythe but his insights were always instructive. It was good to see ThenNow back, however briefly. Wish CS would return as well. The forum is lifeless without them. IMHO.