yknot

I think there is another way that has been used in other class action suits, often regarding health issues. They have the data in the claims, some of which has already been entered. Once the data is input, it's not difficult to mine for corroborating clusters of cases in certain physical locations, in certain time frames, among certain councils, units, or camps, and cross check any incomplete claims against claims with identified and known abusers. For example, you might have a cohort of scouts in X region during Y timeframe who attended Z camp. If they can be matched up to a subset who were able to name an abuser, that lends credence to all the claims, even if some of them are missing a piece of information. So, Tommy was from X unit but can't remember where he went to camp or who the abuser was. However, he also went during Y timeframe. If a dozen other claims are reported in his same council who attended Z camp during Y time frame, and some of those claims ID an abuser, it lends credence to Tommy's claim. There are all sorts of ways the claims can be examined to look for common elements that would corroborate.

That's interesting. I did not appreciate that distinction.

I don't think you can have institutions taking things into their own hands when it comes to reporting YP incidents. That's how I think this whole thread got started. The discussion has been about degree -- some (me and others) feel it should not occur at all, others have argued it has a role. The topic initially came up as a result of a document used in one particular church, but it has not to my mind targeted that church. I haven't been thinking about that church when writing comments. I've been thinking about the process and how its delineated in the various states. I think you are seeing things that aren't there.

Is that where you want to start, though? With the perspective that immediate reporting won't matter because it's going to take an hour or a day anyway? Again, you're not hearing me. Part of the problem with YP is that we have had a lack of urgency about it. We need more urgency to get better. That's what I'm aiming at. Not continuing the status quo. Getting better. Also, I think reaction times depend on the situation, the agency, and the people involved. I have seen immediate response. Jumping out of bed in the middle of night and knocking on a door response. I have also seen institutionalized clogged arteries. In my experience, the more you involve institutions and procedures and legal consults, the more clogging you get. Then why write it that way? Aren't we all trying to discuss these weighted topics with our different perspectives as carefully as possible? I was talking more about BSA educating people in each state what their mandatory reporting responsibilities are proactively rather than dealing with it passively by diverting them into a legal department consult. However, there is definitely much more BSA specific research and education, as well as general education, about YP that could be done. Yes, I literally do think that and I think many of the state laws intend that as well. That's further supported by the verbiage in some of the statues that directs mandatory reporters to next contact institutional heads to immediately begin the collection of evidence. I do think there is a difference with youth vs. adults. When you report something to a youth crisis hotline, you get an immediate response depending on the situation. Some of this is related to the rising suicide rates among teenagers and now even middle school age adolescents. A lot of the front line workers in these areas do not fool around. That's not directly tied to sexual abuse reporting, but abuse is often a part of that crisis picture so it is related and influences the response. Finally, thank you. I did learn one really cool thing from you. I now see how to break up these long text blocks so that I can respond to individual points instead of just leaving the whole scree up there.

I'll give you what my personal bias is in this discussion. I have had some involvement with a juvenile counseling and diversion program and while most of it did not involve sex abuse cases, it did underscore the necessity of immediately reporting and dealing with juvenile crises. An hour in some of those situations can be too late. You may see it as the needs of an organization to protect itself or maybe even just the lawyerly desire to proceed in an orderly fashion but crises with kids are never orderly. They are messy and can get out of hand quickly. Think of how impulsively the average adolescent or teen boy acts. Further, the hour or day you cite between the time someone sees something or overhears something is a false timeline to reassure yourself with. There is no way of knowing when the real timeline started -- how many hours or months that child has been in crisis. Until it's investigated, you have no idea if you are at the beginning, mid, or end point of abuse and how close that kid is to doing something he shouldn't. These are the emotional and very experiential reasons I don't follow the logic of delayed reporting. I haven't seen it work well in practice. I'll go back to factual. I've looked through the statutes and sites of three states so far, NY, NJ, and PA, and all three require immediate reporting to a state agency or other official entity. Subsequent reporting to some of the institutional heads in these states is NOT to obtain legal advice but to report in order to begin collecting evidence. I continue to hold the opinion that delayed reporting to protect the interests of the institution is counter to the dictates or intent of many of these laws, which are more about moving quickly to intervene and to gain evidence. I think you are misinterpreting them and I still don't understand why. Finally, you've have gone back through pages and pages of comments I have written and come up with two pretty mildly worded quizzical comments that you have dramatically interpreted as attacks. I am not attacking you. I don't like your logic and your positions and am trying to get you to see differently. Obviously, I'm failing. I completely understand that people can have legitimate questions about mandatory reporting procedures but instead of inserting a delay into the process by requiring an employee or member to report internally first, the better approach would seem to be to provide more education. In fact, many of these laws seem to require it. That's an area of YP that BSA could obviously do a better job on and recognizing that and other aspects of YP that need improvement has nothing to do with self flagellation or blame. It is my opinion that if BSA doesn't take such overlooked aspects of YP more seriously it can't survive long post bankruptcy.

Let me try to explain it this way: We can't minimize risk if we keep trying to blame youth protection failures in scouting on outside societal trends. What's going on in society is almost irrelevant. If we can't do a better job of minimizing risk within scouting, it really can't go forward except possibly as a family scouting destination program. The attitude that abuse occurs ubiquitously in society anyway so there is nothing more that can be done to prevent it deflects blame away from scouting and prevents the organization from dealing with the fact it still has a problem. That, in my opinion, is what will kill scouting. It might continue along for awhile post bankruptcy until the next spate of lawsuits but then that will be it. Scouting won't survive a Round Two. I'm not trying to be offensive in my opinion, but I do think it is the likely reality.

In my opinion this is the nut. This attitude. If we don't get past it we'll lose scouting. It is not about blame. It is about minimizing risk.

I think discussions about youth protection in the context of the religious institutions that have been involved in scouting, of which LDS is certainly a dominant one, are perhaps some of the most relevant discussions on this forum. Trying to understand the differing attitudes among all the players involved regarding youth protection policies, training, reporting, etc., has been central to this our greatest crisis and will be exquisitely relevant to any future survival of the BSA. We have to be willing to be brutally honest that we have had attitudes, policies, beliefs, and procedures that have not worked and despite great improvements are still not working as well as they could. I'm Catholic, attend Methodist, and have ecumenical connection to other churches. I have the same discussions and ask the same kinds of questions in those arenas.

I took the time to re read my own comments to make sure I did not inadvertently say anything that could be construed as emotional or offensive because I would not want to do that. I did not. Virtually all my comments are factual -- stating state laws and resources, including ones that are used by BSA, and in some cases providing links. When I have disagreed with you and have been unable to follow your logic, I have clearly said so and been respectful in doing so. Frankly, I think you and others are having emotional reactions to statements of facts or opinions you don't agree with. I can understand something is your opinion, but I don't think it's emotional to say I don't agree with it or can't follow how you arrived at it.

Again, I'm sorry, but this seems like an awful lot of backflip rationalization to support protecting an institution and not a kid. Please, just re-read all that you have written. You have put an awful lot of thought into defending deferred reporting.

This is something I had trouble with with my last AOL den. They were very well prepared for cross over. The Troop though went through Scout very laboriously with a couple of fun exceptions. Then, all cross overs had to sign up for a Dan Beard program at summer camp, which the kids started calling Dan Bored, and did a lot of the same stuff all over again. The Troop lost about a third of the boys that first fall because they were bored stinkless. I think it's important to honor the progression but also realize it can seem very repetitive and boring to 10 and 11 year old kids. People have talked about kids burning out on cubs and I think some of the repetitiveness, especially the last 18 months in cubs and the first year in troop, is one reason why.

Nowhere in this list do they address the volunteer problem for one.

In my state everyone is a mandatory reporter and the requirement is that the abuse be reported immediately to an identified state agency and possibly 911. I think that's pretty clear. Again, I'm not clear why there is this degree of pushback on immediate reporting. Who is it protecting? Your scenario of 9 p.m. vs. 1 p.m. is fictional. You or I have no idea how the reporting process would work once it veers outside of what is legislated or inferred or seems responsible. I don't care what my position or role in an organization is, if I see child sexual abuse occurring, hear it occurring, or suspect it is occurring I am immediately calling legal authorities, not legal counsel. It is discussions like this one that make me question whether scouting should continue. If the focus isn't on protecting kids, then ...

Once again, I am having trouble with the logic. I think a lot of religions have positions that are in some kind of gray area as do plenty of other fields. Doesn't change the fact that you are a mandatory reporter. That's a failing of the organization if it doesn't adequately inform its members of their responsibilities and train them if needed.

That could be true except a priest is not a layman in this situation. They are a mandatory reporter in many if not most states. They would be, or should be, at least as conversant with reporting requirements as would be a licensed driver would be with traffic law. Especially given the abuse environment since the 1980s. This is not new or surprising information to any clergy in just about any church.

I'm still having trouble following this logic. When I see flashing lights behind me, I don't call my lawyer before pulling over for a traffic stop and complying. The laws in each state are pretty generally known to residents in those states. I don't understand what is being advocated for here or why.

"Who h'are you? I must know...." -- Inigo Montoya. The Princess Bride

Perhaps the only outside way to effect it now would be AG investigations in various states that might uncover some of the dysfunction that is inherent in the organization. Scouting insiders have become like boiled frogs -- we are accepting of the dysfunction to some degree. More outside light is needed.

BSA uses CWIG as a base source for YP. Not sure what you mean. I'm also not clear what you are trying to show with this recap or what the purpose is. Correct me if I'm wrong but this discussion started with a line on an internal church form that advised priests to contact internal legal counsel first before reporting abuse. If I understand you correctly, you are saying based on the above, it is reasonable for XYZ church institution to direct its mandatory reporting personnel to contact legal first. I look at this same information above and that seems not at all reasonable. The intent of all these laws, despite some of the different permutations, are clear: that suspected abuse should be reported promptly to authorities who will do something about it in a timely manner in order to prevent more abuse. There is a special onus placed on anyone who is a mandatory reporter and institutions may not interfere. There are some very specific situations, such as perhaps a priest hearing an admission of abuse in a one on one confession, that could be considered a privileged communication and might be legitimate cause for a legal consult, but the initial form we were discussing went far beyond that kind of limited situation.

I want BSA to survive. Right now I don't trust it to. There are so many comments on this board and elsewhere that make me think that a reconstituted BSA would simply be the 2.0 version of what we have. If that happens, the next crisis is merely around the corner. The idea of making decisions now about scouting's future with the current leadership in place with no plan or road map that indicates any real internal analysis has taken place seems like history waiting to repeat itself. I was hopeful that bankruptcy would lead to a complete restructuring that would address some of the inherent dysfunction. It doesn't seem to be happening. The only new plan I've been hearing for post bankruptcy scouting is the same plan we've been hearing connected to the old one: increase membership.

I completely agree and have made many similar comments over the years. There is no defense for near zero communication from top leadership. All good leaders communicate. We needed a general but have gotten what feels like a car pool driver. A nice bland guy who will move us down the road instead of leading the way.

It was pretty awful. I kept waiting for the cat face filter to pop up.

Again, I'm sorry, but I am not reading this the same way you are. In 9 states the mandatory reporter is required to report directly to authorities first, not to an institutional head or resource, and in 17 states there is a variation of that. https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs/manda.pdf I think the Sandusky case showed the dangers of having indirect reporting and it seems like some of that has been tightened up.

A lot of the information in this seems to indicate differently. https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs/clergymandated.pdf

It may not be the way we want it to be but if it is the way it is, does it do any good to ignore it? You will never have a chance of influencing different behaviors if you can't even get them to knock on the door.