yknot

Maybe this has been their strategy all along and why they have fought losing the HA bases. If you look at the problems with youth protection, liability, structural issues with oversight, insurance, BSA may have concluded it really can't run anything other than a family program at the national level. This way it will preserve the charter, preserve the boy scout name and legacy to some degree, and leave local scouting to whatever councils/unit survive or are able to continue on their own.

I don't think it's credible to claim it's due to search engine issues. It would be pretty magical if 4H was somehow invisible throughout the interweb. 4H historically has also always served far more youth than scouting. Right now the membership is somewhere around 6 million to BSA's 700,000. Even if many parents, lawyers, and the media somehow colluded not to link the 4H name to abuse cases, there would still be a lot of cases out there. Activities in 4H can be similar but the program dynamics are completely different as I outlined above. It is largely a group activity done in public. There are opportunities for abuse as there would be anywhere kids are present but they would appear to be less. There are a lot more women involved. Parents are also far more likely to trust a boy scout leader or a pastor with a child because of institutionalized assumptions about character. As I've also said before, in 4H as a kid you are much more on your own with other kids and it is more kid run. There is no real advancement process that drives adults to become directly involved with youth. The idea that a child wouldn't remember that someone who abused them was a 4H leader because of a lack of uniform is nonsensical. I don't mean to be defending 4H so much, I am more using it as an example that the scouting program is inherently attractive to predators and creates unique opportunities for them. I think until scouting confronts that and figures out ways to address it better instead of trying to deflect it as a societal problem that can't be helped, the future of scouting, and the kids in it, isn't safe. Others have been focused on the money and numbers throughout the bankruptcy process here but this is the aspect that has riveted me.

4H members can also do high adventure and more outdoors oriented projects depending on the state and county but the process is very different and there is more parent involvement. 4H offers almost everything, so it is a fine slice of the membership pie but then again 4H enrolls many, many more kids than scouting. I think the membership now is over 6 million. Many 4H clubs, regardless of what subject, still camp as part of the experience and also attend 4H camp. When I was young, we camped with an adult leader, but it was generally a group bunkhouse at a camp. You were never really alone with an adult.

That's why I said Google yourself for headlines and cases and see what you think. I find very few. Google Scout Leader Sex Abuse and 4H Leader Sex Abuse and see what pops up once you get past the recent mass filing. If cases were as rampant in 4H as in scouting, wouldn't someone somewhere have been filing more cases than the handful that come up? It also was and is a different environment. Before two deep, the whole advancement process in scouting with scoutmaster conferences, sign offs, skills demonstration, etc. created a lot of opportunities for a predator to cut a kid from the herd. In 4H, it's pretty much all public. You don't do anything with an adult leader, you exhibit at a fair, you present to a group, etc. There were also a lot more moms involved in 4H as both leaders and chaperones. In my opinion, women have traditionally been more vigilant about who is doing what with kids and keeping track of where they are, although I think many more men have started adopting those strategies as well. Traditionally, a lot of the scouting program has tried to minimize 'mom hovering' especially at the troop level, but it seems there may have been a downside to that. There is no other youth organization that does that except for maybe some of the marquee sports cultures at the older ages.

One of the differences to explain it might be that 88% of abuse perpetrators are male. Scouts, especially at the troop level, has been predominantly male. 4H leadership gender varies. There is plenty of camping and outdoor activity in 4H, but the leader/member dynamic is also completely different. Most of the 4H I was involved with was also kid run, but the program really didn't have a lot of opportunity for one on one contact with a leader. Just based on headlines, there seem to be very few cases of abuse in 4H. Google scout abuse and you get dozens if not hundreds of hits for cases filed or reported on in scouting. Google 4H leader abuse you get few. There could be a media bias there, and maybe we'll see more, but for now it appears other youth organizations are safer. Even among sports, most of the abuse cases seem to be at the late middle school/high school level. There are very few at the elementary school ages but there are plenty of cases in that age group in cub scouts in scouting.

Some version of the ineligible volunteers files have been in existence since 1919. They were referenced in the 1930s. BSA long knew it was a particular target for pedophiles. 4-H is also a 100 plus year old legacy youth organization and no such files exist there.

I think they have no idea. There has been no communication from BSA to the COs other than what has been funneled through Councils. That is mostly a feel good message and in many cases there is no communication channel from the Council/District/Unit to the CO. I don't know about other CO groups, but from what I've seen from the UMC, it's still largely very vague and muted. They are concerned but still want to support scouts, at least according to the latest information I've seen. I think it's unethical that BSA is not being more forthcoming, especially with the smaller and individual CO groups. At one point they may have thought they could have managed the situation, but that is obviously not the case. I imagine if the worst happens, BSA public relations will attempt to blame it on victims' lawyers and victim lawsuits, but as all of us who are on this forum know, this train has been pulling into the station for at least 18 months. There is no excuse. I think the vast majority of COs have no idea about the omni site or anything else.

That would be a best case scenario if it is limited to the BSA relationship with COs. In a worst case, zombie world scenario, we could see hundreds of local small COs wiped out or affected by this. For example, the Methodist Church. I work with is a state based council. A host of smaller churches by me are barely functional, but they do have some property and assets. If the UMC had to respond to the cases in our state as a council, it would likely result in the closure and sale of dozens of small churches, their parsonages, some local camp properties, community buildings, etc. If Chapter 11 is meant to leave BSA functional, does it also ensure that any COs are left functional? Most are teetering on a knife's edge.

I have wondered that as well. However, while many COs are poor, many are rich so I guess it would be worth it to drill down to that level in the long run. But that would take so much time.

I think that's largely going to be the Councils going forward? Could be good, could be bad. It might force Councils to finally understand and deal with local unit issues if they are knee deep in them. One of the dysfunctional aspects of the scouting structure is that we have different levels operating in different directions to meet different goals. This might collapse the CO/Unit/District/Council layers into one more functional entity. The bad side could be if instead of learning Councils simply tried to mandate down to units.

What I have seen in numerous COs near me is that they are mostly legacy units with relationships going back decades in the community and the members have no idea what those relationships are other than to provide meeting space and benign support. All they know is that once a year some nice person from the local boy scout troop whom they have known for years stops by and asks them to sign something. Some COs were very hands on because they used scouting as an outgrowth of their youth programming and ministry. Others may have started out like that, but over the decades as church memberships declined and more kids joined from other churches and faiths, it was simply seen as a community service in which meeting space and benign support was provided. BSA was aware of this but didn't intercede because it would have decreased membership if some of these COs understood what they were truly responsible for.

That is something I agree with. The uniform today I think is more for nostalgic adults than the kids. It should be a survey question. It's the only activity I can think of other than marching band where I hear kids regularly complain about discomfort. They are basically still wearing what an old British guy -- a Lord no less -- wore in 1910.

The only numbers we have that are not anecdotal are the claims that were filed. Until they are further analyzed to either accept or deny them, they represent a factual data point. Everything else is conjecture. You say you are being careful about how you select your data, but several times it has been pointed out that comparing the number of claims filed in the current day to the past universe of scouting alumni of 110 million, most of whom are likely now dead or incapacitated, is not valid. I think it is also important to acknowledge that asking survivors to file claims is not the same as conducting a study that offers anonymity. The act of filing a claim carries some degree of public exposure, a limiting factor in getting many survivors of sexual abuse to report their abuse. Many of the studies that have been done have been confidential and not part of a filing where the victim's name would be exposed to an attorney and office staff. Anecdotally on this forum and elsewhere, victims have noted that they were abused but chose not to file a claim for various reasons. We have no idea how many victims fall into that category.

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.