yknot

Flashback Friday: This is the weekend we would try to work on Pinewood Derby cars while trying to watch wildcard football games. Hope more scouts still get to do that in future.

Exactly. But this discussion arose because people were complaining about having to do things differently.

Certainly things still happen and schools are not perfect. My point though was that scouters who compare adult ratios at camp outs in the woods to academic and sports environments are not comparing apples to apples. There are far more adults around in day to day school settings; teachers and adults are not usually taking kids off into remote locations some distance from civilization; and there is a lot more surveillance on a typical school campus than there is in the woods or at a remote camp ground, especially now in the aftermath of some of these high profile school shooter events. It took a

Things have changed dramatically since 2012. Why? Sandy Hook. That shooting quickly and forever changed school security and surveillance measures. Other incidents since then have contributed but the environment is completely different now and forever will be.

That's true. But there are also plenty of nooks and crannies in the woods and behind the boulder or on campgrounds and no cameras at all. Plus in school or sports settings you've got 3 minutes to pass for class before someone notices you are missing or 5 minutes before a coach or gym teacher wonders why you are not out of the locker room or your parents are in the lot waiting for you. It's really not the same kind of risk environment. There are risks, yes, but they are not comparable to scouting.

I know scouters like to compare BSA to the school environment but there are some very significant differences. There are cameras everywhere today in the academic setting. No child is ever really "alone" with a teacher, coach or bus driver, because there are cameras in hallways, in classrooms, at sports facilities both inside and at the field houses, in offices, and on buses. It's a very different situation.

Well, if it's not resentment, then you've made it clear you don't like it. I understand the loss of not being able to free range our kids. I grew up that way. It's a better way to grow up. However, the reality is that that world is gone for reasons too numerous to list here. For scouters to try to hold onto that mentality now for this one particular aspect of troop management doesn't make any sense. It's hard to believe that it is really just that intolerable or outrageous to have enough adults on hand to maintain YPT in the event of an unanticipated event, especially when out with a larger g

BSA requires you to follow your CO's guidelines. United Methodist Church requires 2 adults per 13 youth; Catholic Church basically requires 2 per 8 youth unless everyone is above 14. Most school districts require more stringent ratios. Most third party campgrounds and facilities as well. Not sure how you are able to get around that. The blog I posted noted that BSA sorta kinda does require upping the adults as the scout head count goes up and it was in the old online TAP. Like I said, I don't understand the resentment to something that is common sense and part of being prepared.

You have loaded an awful lot of things onto the backs of the suppositional 3rd or 4th adults along on this imaginary outing we're talking about. If I'm reading you right, you are saying that having an extra adult or two turns a scout outing with 20 or 30 kids into a risk desert? That 20 or 30 kids will somehow not find something risky to do? You're saying that having "an heir and a spare" along is contributory to youth anxiety? I don't know how to interpret opinions like yours -- and I've read similar ones elsewhere on this site. I don't know where the resentment towards adequate adult

I'm sorry Tahawk but I am not at all clear on what you are trying to say. I think two adults present and accounted for... is pretty clear?

I get that in one sense but on the other hand given the bankruptcy situation we are in and all our current challenges, PR and otherwise, that is kind of an irresponsible viewpoint. If your unit parents were able to read this forum, is that what you would want them to read how you selected your summer camp location? That you chose it specifically because the camp did not require adequate adult supervision? Sometimes I think scouters have a death wish...

https://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2018/01/19/whats-the-difference-between-two-deep-leadership-and-no-one-on-one-contact/ Here, among other places. This is a little out of date because the requirements have become even more stringent in the past couple years. Edit: Also, I work with COs from two different denominations and they also demand a ratio of at least 1:10.

If you didn't fill out the prompts correctly, you got a red alert that you were honor bound to address before heading out. Did you not have to fill those out? Edit: It's referenced here on this forum because I remember having discussions about them.

No, that's not it. It's the one that you had to prompted thru to submit. You had to list enough adults to cover the number of scouts signed up. It was the last version I had to fill out before they did away with TAPs completely.

Okayyyy... but if the litmus test for YPT is two deep at all times no matter what then, being scouts, we have to "Be Prepared" to effect that, no? Also, the online Tour Plan has been gone for awhile but for a long time that stipulated 1:10 adults to scouts on any outing.

I didn't literally mean off "in the field" somewhere I meant the usual places -- summer camp and campgrounds. Over the past 15 or so years, we have rotated among about four scout camps in adjoining councils for summer camp. All require an adult ratio of at least one adult per 10 scouts at a minimum. So 30 scouts would require 3 to 4 adults. Our units wouldn't go with less than 4 because you can't maintain YPT if something comes up. Camp staff or rangers might be around but they are usually out of sight. I'm also surprised this doesn't come up on your camping permits at non scout campgrounds.

Additionally, I'm not proposing a change. This is pretty much how all units in my region interpret YPT requirements. There is no unit I know of within driving distance that would ever put 30 kids in the field with just two adults. It would never happen. Never.

Wow. YPT is pretty clear two adults always in BSA. Most youth activities do require two adults. I work with several worship houses in an interfaith council and all have youth protection policies that require two adults whenever children are present and the numbers of adults needed go up as the number of youth do and based on the activity. In the public educational environment, you cannot take youth on a field trip without a minimum of one adult per 3-4 children. There are some youth sports settings where a single coach with a team is OK but that is only because the field is ringed with parents

Is your CO aware that you take 30 kids out with two adults? If something happens it's hard to defend under the legal definition of negligence and could leave you all exposed to liability because no other youth organization works that way. BSA itself no longer allows even small patrols to operate without at least two deep adult supervision what makes you think even larger groups would be OK? Relying on camp staffing to count towards numbers only relates if they are working with your unit and are in sight, not if they are randomly in residence somewhere in the general vicinity.

Whoa. I normally like what you have to say fred, but this is kind of out there. No, no way should 30 kids be out in the woods with 2 adults. Think of summer camp. Most camps, apart from the initial two leaders, want an additional responsible adult per 5 kids. So you send 20 kids to camp, you need at least 3 and preferably 4 adults. Thirty kids would require an additional two. That's pretty much what any other youth activity requires as well.

It's inferred. With 30 kids, the chances of something going wrong needing additional adults are pretty high. You've got to have two to stay and two to leave. From a liability standpoint you just shouldn't do it. It would be insane given today's legal liability environment.

Eh, I don't think you can have two leaders with 30 scouts any more. That's just not kosher from a YPT or liability sense. BORs -- I still don't get the value of having them staffed with people who don't interact with scouts. I think that' s the opposite of what you'd want. Maybe we've unwittingly broken some rules, but our BORs are usually all hands on deck even if that means grabbing a wandering ASM and plunking them in a chair. I've just never seen it be an issue of any kind whatsoever.

Interesting. Almost all our committee members interact with scouts. Scouts contact the AC regarding advancements, talk to the treasurer re funds, etc. We have had committee people who routinely attend camp outs, meetings, and activities. Thank goodness they do because we're a smaller unit. BORs in our units are viewed as an opportunity for the scout to talk to adults about his/her experiences earning rank and for the units to get feedback on how well the program is serving the scout. Other than that it's not any kind of quality control. One of the most important qualities for

Absolutely. We made decisions that kept our units alive and going.

Totally get it but we are facing a new paradigm with fewer adults available to be hands on. For the past ten years our units have completely blurred the lines because it's been all hands on deck. CM in name only. SM who are nonfunctional. Roles backfilled by Committee people. Committee roles unfilled so some other warm and willing body has had to step in even if it's been an ASM. The whole program/committee structure is very top heavy. It works very well when you have a lot of bodies. Not so well when you are lean.