yknot

It's not that any organization is special, it's that scouting creates specific and unique risks. I don't know if you noticed but one of those 4-H reports is from 2007 and the other is not about sexual abuse at all, it's about a bunch of teenage counselors running their own fight club. There are not a plethora of 4-H reports. BSA should be expected to have the gold standard YP program because it is the only youth organization that at least monthly has unrelated adults take unrelated kids off to remote locations without cameras or any other kind of public supervision for lengthy, overnight trips. 4-H policies may vary by state, but they've never claimed to be the national gold standard. And in some states they exceed BSA standards. In California, for example, a 4-H leader has to call police if they find they've been left alone with a member because a parent is late for pick up. It's myopic and unproductive to think that BSA shouldn't have higher standards and be able to uphold them. But sadly, as we have all read on this forum, despite actually having national policies that are supposed to be consistently applied, we don't do so. YP is an inconsistent mess. For every SM who runs a tight ship it seems based on what is posted here there are dozens who don't. The other issue with BSA that it shares with the Catholic Church and other religious entities is that it claims the moral high ground. It's whole orthodoxy is based on the concept that a scout is trustworthy, so parents can be lulled into being more trusting when handing their children over to scout leaders. I completely agree that abuse of children is a societal problem. I completely disagree that that exonerates BSA in any way for what has happened in its organization. Child abuse can and does happen anywhere, but it clearly happens more in scouting. We provide a unique environment for it to occur. Until we are able to honestly confront that ugly fact, we can't really improve youth protection.

BSA is different by nature of what we do with kids and when and where we do it. I think you have to recognize that and understand it as a risk specific to scouting before you can make any headway with understanding why YP is such an issue. There is no huge issue in 4-H. There are very few cases reported involving 4-H leaders. No one's hiding them, they just haven't been reported. I'm sure there are some random adults attached to some random clubs that abused kids, but it's not occurring in the 4-H setting to the degree it does in scouting.

Since when do men and women of character offload responsibility to some government entity? What is scouting about if it isn't about seeing, knowing, and doing the right thing? I am growing impatient with this idea that it is never our fault because it was someone else's responsibility to tell us what to do. We ran the organization. We oversaw the kids. We knew what was happening. It was our job to keep them safe. We failed.

Oy, no. For example, 4-H has significantly more youth members than scouting and you will be hard pressed to find any reports of youth molestation in their ranks. The IV files were an incompetent effort and to some degree they are irrelevant except for the liability insurance question. The claim totals speak for themselves.

I don't think you mean what you are saying here. Because on some level, the IV files did identify and prevent additional abuse beyond the already mind numbing numbers. I don't think you are saying that having 160,000 kids abused would be worth continuing business as usual today. The BSA lost its soul when it did not realize what those growing numbers in the IV files meant.

Many kids do. Have you ever seen the Race to Nowhere documentary? Pretty tragic but it is the reality and is part of what is driving the push to Eagle at all costs in some regions.

I don't think most parents view it that way. For most who are pointing towards a better college, it's an "And?" credential. Meaning, "So, you're 4.0 and you're a National Merit Scholar and you're an elite athlete and you're president of XYZ and you've gotten 5s on al your AP exams and you volunteer for Unified and you're an Eagle Scout... and?"

I think it depends on the school. I'm not so sure. BSA is largely viewed as a white, male enclave. I knew an Eagle Scout who was challenged in an interview when he tried to counter that. He did not get into that school. Maybe some of the Ivy League schools are still traditional enough that it would count but get out among second tier and state schools and it might be a different story.

I think this depends on where you are. I started going into the local districts in the early 2000s and teachers were rarely alone with kids by that point. There was almost always a parent or an aide in the classroom. Open door policies. One on one was often done at desks in hallways. After Sandy Hook, a lot of schools also put in surveillance cameras. School busses have cameras. School grounds have exterior cameras. You might think teachers are alone with kids -- and in some cases they are -- but they are rarely unobserved.

We do need tort reform. On the other hand I would not want to be in Canada or Europe where your kid can be mutilated and you have almost no recourse.

I see what you are saying but in a lot of cases that model is also extremely problematic as we've seen from the cases in the Catholic church. The priest who was part of your family could also be dangerous, even though you thought you knew him well. When you look at where some of the "epidemics" of abuse occur, it's often in areas where perpetrators are able to hide behind a mantle of propriety and respect that their position infers -- scout leaders, priests, other religious figures, physicians, Big Brother/Big Sister, teachers, etc. Of all those positions, only scout leaders routinely get to take children away from parental supervision for long periods of time overnight in remote areas. I don't care who the CO is, it is probably always a fraught situation when you look at it that way.

I don't know what that means but what I am taking from all this is that the effort of trying supervise unrelated adults taking unrelated children into the unsupervised out of doors may not, on balance, be a good idea. It just may be beyond the capabilities of the human animal.

I think it also makes it hard to dismiss a lot of these claims as, "In 1940, some Scoutmaster touched my leg and I felt weird". I think some people have been scoffing that these claims would not be serious. I think it also makes it hard to dismiss a lot of these claims as, "In 1940, some Scoutmaster touched my leg and I felt weird". I think some people have been scoffing that these claims would not be serious.

I think one place to look for information is the youth sports world. Youth volunteer coaches and officials are frequently urged to get liability umbrella coverage. I don't see the roles as being much different. Also, I have always wondered about D&O insurance for those who serve on the committee. It's not just who is at the camp out who is liable. The committee can be named in lawsuits as well.

Maybe you switch to a location where you can get weather radar. I think you'd earlier compared lightning deaths to things like biking, dog bites, etc. One difference with lightning is the possibility of mass casualties. Death or injury by dog or bike generally involves one person; a lightning strike under the wrong conditions can kill or injure multiple people. BSA is not alone in having guidelines. They are pretty standard throughout most outdoors related organizations and activities. It is a good point about not trying to run somewhere once the storm is near. By then it's too late. Kids are killed trying to run to safety. One thing I would suggest per CDC is to not leave kids sleeping on the ground in tents. Get them to sit up to minimize their point of contact. Put on any footwear with rubber soles and crouch low on something minimally conductive. I think this post is great. I rarely hear of units running tabletop drills on topics like these. I have come close enough to getting struck by lightning to take it very seriously. When your hair starts floating up in the air you know it's not good.

This is why you can't pay attention to weather apps beyond general information. You need to understand that weather can literally happen over your head. You need to have a healthy respect for it.

Well first I would say monitor reports before you go and modify plans if necessary. If the atmosphere is that unsettled, might not be a good weekend to camp. Or, adjustments might need to be made as far as location. Move to a less interesting location closer to hard shelter. Second, make sure you have all the necessary weather apps and a weather radio however, don't rely on weather apps which are often wrong. Keep your eyes up and monitor weather yourself. Third, don't set up in a stand of mature trees. Pick a clearing that is not elevated or in a low or runoff spot prone to water. If no clearings, then follow same -- avoid elevation and low spots; pick a location somewhat sheltered from expected wind/storm direction; don't set up under any grandfather trees. Go plans are also dependent on region and geography. Tornadic activity is rare where I am in the northeast but common in the southeast where part of my family is from. In the northeast, I'm more likely to chance outdoor activity; less so in the southeast. If you have not planned this out ahead of time and are caught out, head for the closest hard structure. If you are in the northeast and wind is not an issue, heading for cars you've kept close by might be acceptable. No debate allowed about go time. That procedure should be established before hand. My attitude towards adverse weather is different than some. In the past, I have had to cope with it on a professional level and I don't take chances. I've noted a different attitude among those who interact with it recreationally and are looking forward to a weekend out with kids that they don't want to cancel and are more willing to take risks. Thanks for this. I think these tabletop exercises are really useful.

I can see some public angst developing but I think it's more likely to come from the environmental sector because some of these camps are large, pristine tracts.

Yes I think that would be a little tone deaf for the victims on the TCC and could backfire for the BSA.

I think that's what most people are suggesting and it makes sense. I think volunteer issues and parental bandwidth are really going to drive the issue. In youth sports, you can drive your daughter to one game or practice and your son to another and you don't have to be in the same place.

I apparently didn't handle it well. My kids suffered because I did not have as much time for them as I devoted to other kids. I was determined not to give them preferential treatment because they were mine and in retrospect was actually harder on them than I was on other kids. They also could never have a day off because if I had to be there, they had to be there although I did miss some critical moments in their lives outside of scouting because I had to be at the scout event while they were elsewhere. This created some resentment towards scouting on my part. Further, if I was trying to be neutral about an obnoxious kid I expected them to be as well and that was very difficult for them. In my defense I did not put any expectations on them as far as advancement If I'm being totally honest, in retrospect, I would have leveraged my position more to suit the interests of my kids. My quest to be scout like, above board, and altruistic backfired with my own kids.

Sounds like that is not going to be enough if the plan was rejected though?

This is a problem from cubs on up. Parts of the program are not developmentally appropriate. It can also be boring and repetitive. One of my fears is that if anything of BSA survives bankruptcy it will still trot along without really addressing some of the root reasons why kids today find it less appealing. For starters, it needs to be less homework like and more outdoors focused.

I had a UC who while he wasn't actually sexually harassing anyone had some pretty offensive views about the role of women which he shared freely. He's still there. Largely because he's the only person willing to volunteer to be a UC in the District.

To this laundry list of culpability I would add all the behind the scenes dirty laundry that has been aired here by scouters actively involved in the program but not widely known by outside critics: less than 100% YPT training rates; scouters who view YPT as a nuisance and flaunt it;; scouters who dislike parental involvement and sometimes even actively discourage it; lack of any real oversight by BSA and lack of attention to the dysfunctional CO structure; lack of clarity about YP policies; the volunteer manpower crisis that sometimes leads units to keep questionable people in scouting roles; nonexistent background checks -- the list could go on.