yknot

I've been concerned because the documented youth transmission cases that have occurred in our area have mostly been during outdoor sport practices, not in class and in school. In practice, even if they are doing socially distanced drills and eschewing locker rooms, they are not wearing masks. This virus does not like heat, humidity or sunlight, so as winter temps cool and become dryer. wear your masks and forget about 6 feet social distance stay 12 feet away even in open air.

I'm sorry to hear that you experienced this first hand and hope you are fully recovered soon. I know. Many people do not take this seriously. Be well.

A lot of our discussion on this thread and elsewhere on this forum is on what we all think should or should not happen with scouting. A common comment is that today's kids "need" scouting. However much many people here may believe that, I'm not sure that that is a clarion call to youth. I think we need to find out what kids and their families want or need from an organization like scouting. I wish we had some real, non BSA (meaning objective) data on why kids join, don't join, or leave. I know we all try to get information and feedback out of scouts whether in BORs or in trying to recruit around town but it's not enough. I also think when people know you are involved in scouting they don't always tell the truth because they don't want to offend you. I know I often hear one thing when I ask a kid or a parent why they are dropping out or not joining, but my sons often hear something else when they talk amongst themselves.

Those are exactly the kinds of questions BSA needs to be asking and researching. I would say 4H has survived because it hasn't been afraid to change and because it has remained relevant to an evolving youth market. It's much more elastic. You can say the same of youth sports and other youth organizations. BSA is pretty moribund.

I think this is an area worthy of discussion regarding how it may impact scouting going forward. Extended adolescence is an issue. Youth do seem less able to handle certain responsibility markers that prior generations were more adept with. However, youth today have greater and different pressures than older generations did. Just watching a 14 year old trying to navigate the virtual learning environment has been mind boggling for me. Can I depend on him to load the shotgun, hike 10 miles in snow, and bring back dinner? No. He'd be crying. Can I depend on him to figure out how to jury rig a hotspot when the internet goes down so he can still make class and I can work and bring home dinner? Yes. Different life skills, but just as responsible.

Fascinating. One adult Eagle's story from 1959, much later than 1948: ... "Gallagher started as a Tenderfoot at the age of 38." Perhaps this was regional? If this would encourage greater adult volunteer involvement,, support, and commitment, maybe it's not as crazy as it looks. It could have a special designation, such as Silver Eagle Scout. Again, I am just thinking in terms of what would help scouting survive, not what it means in a program sense. And here's where the contradiction comes into play for me: I don't agree at all with the way that the Eagle marquee has become monetized and marketed by BSA. I hate it, and I don't think it should be the point of scouting. However, it may be one of the few valuable assets a post bankruptcy BSA has left to help it rebuild.

I guess I'm not looking at this in a program/citizenship sense but in a marketing/future survivability sense. I also know I sometimes contradict myself when I do this. I continually point to other youth organizations that seem to be doing a better job of surviving than BSA is despite having the common struggle of having to engage with fewer and busier kids and families. One of the things that many of these organizations do is find ways to keep youth involved as long as possible and beyond into adulthood. The closest BSA seems to have is FOS and that is a straight out money ask. I think somewhere in here is an opportunity to do more -- just not sure what.

Just to try and circle this interesting discussion about scout membership age limits back to a historical context, I did find out that up until 1948 adults were able to earn Eagle Scout and up until 1972 Explorers could earn Eagle until they were 21. It is also interesting that in a handful of states the age of majority is not 18 but older. I wonder if anyone has any historical information on this. I can see the problems that YPT today has created with having older youth interacting with younger youth even if that took place within some kind of new structure. However, if scouting wants to keep scouting in the lives of people post the age of 18, it might want to take on the challenge at looking at ways to keep older teens, young adults, and adults feel more connected to the organization. For starters, looking at a way to allow high school seniors active in the organization even if they turn 18 before graduating. Many youth organizations have this kind of mechanism. In a way BSA already allows it because it allows a 3 month window for the Eagle BOR.

Curious -- what is the reason for that? Church youth groups around here frequently allow kids up to 20.

Membership age should be extended to calendar year 21. Some youth organizations use 21 as the cut off, especially if it's something extracurricular, so that they can continue through college. There is no sensible reason I can see for scouts to cut off at 18. At the very least, scouts ought to extend it to calendar year 18 to make it easier for high school seniors to stay engaged in a peer activity through the end of their senior year because a lot of them turn 18 before their year is out. Would seem to be a simple and common sense way to increase membership.

The vast majority of people who have filed claims are in their 40s to 50s and some younger. That means many if not most perpetrators are likely still alive today. It's not clear to me either how they will be held accountable as part of this bankruptcy process but I hope that's part of it.

BSA is in this situation because of BSA. I agree BSA is not in a position to take the offensive but it could at least defend itself-- meaning the units and those still laboring in them. We have had months of silent and absent leadership at the top that has not even responded to the most egregious of claims. What's been leaked from the Churchill Project clearly shows there is no hope of an innovative restructuring, it's just business as usual. There's been no communication down to the unit level as we've proceeded through this mess. This is not normal for a viable organization. Even the most Cracker Jack of companies attempts to communicate with its people in the field through a crisis.

You are like in the 1980s. I don't even know where to begin with you lol.

I don't know what to say to anyone else. I came here to this forum a few years ago because I was worried, but this isn't the venue to fix anything, only to share in the best of times and to vent in the worst. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any venue for folks at the unit level to try and fix anything. Many will tell you to just focus on delivering a great program at the unit level, and that's what I tried to help do. But then I kept having this feeling that at least a part of the apple we were trying to deliver was rotten. I can't square myself with trying to deliver a partly rotten apple to anyone, so I pulled my youngest scout out this summer. I'm on the charter until December and I've continued to try to help, but after that, I am done. I wish everyone well.

I know. I'd like a better sense myself of what exactly happened but I think the numbers -- and the stories that each new report recounts -- are telling the tale to a large degree. It's tragic. BSA is story of both dark and bright angels it seems.

I understand where you are coming from but you have to turn around and look at what you are saying. Replace "slavery" or "segregation" with "pedophilia" and I think you'll see what I mean. There is no way to examine this retroactively with any view to trying to put what happened in any kind of context no matter how valid. Trying to engage in any kind of moral relativism can only backfire. Scouting is up against a wall. While the leadership has missed a lot of opportunities to communicate where I think they could have tried to defend themselves or clarify, there are too many things they simply cannot try to explain or defend without making things worse in both a legal and public relations sense. The other issue is that while BSA may have done more than anyone else, however flawed, to prevent abuse, it was still slow to recognize it (they've been aware they were a pedophile magnet since the 1920s) and also failed to comprehend the unique circumstances in which it combined adults with youth, as did the Catholic church to their own great sorrow. Both the scouts and the church had warning bells many decades before they took effective steps. In my opinion it's because the organizational structures and, in a way, cultures, of the two organizations had similar flaws. Both allowed potentially predatory adults unparalleled access to children; both put forward adult leaders -- scoutmasters and priests -- as persons above parental scrutiny and reproach; both created inadequately supervised franchise- like entities, whether COs/units or parishes, where predators could operate; both put youth in remote and opaque environments with adults, whether on camp outs or for altar duty. I'm really sad about what's happening. It's not panic on my part, just a dwindling of hope. A few things have struck me the past couple weeks apart from the tsunami of claims. One has been the comments by some of the attorneys that this will forever change the way youth organizations are run in this country. Perhaps the good that will come out of this tragedy is that our country's attention will be focused on the need to better protect children and will figure out a way to do it. Another was what happened last week with the last minute scramble by COs to file proof of claims. The CO structure in BSA is dysfunctional because they have long been at cross purposes with each other and that development throws that fact into bas relief. Another point is that I agree with MattR that scouting is obviously going to cease to exist as we know it, but whatever remains of it is still good. Some version of scouting is better than no scouting. We'll figure something out.

His son Beau Biden prosecuted one of the most egregious cases of pedophilia in Delaware and there is a foundation in his son's name -- The Beau Biden Foundation -- dedicated to the protection of children. Who knows how Biden's own scout experiences will square against honoring the legacy of his dead son and what was apparently his life's interest.

An article posted above states that about 85% of the claimants are between the ages of 45 to 52, so if true that would put the bulk of the claims in a time period ranging from about1974 at the low end to 1993. Whether the accuser is 8, 93, or somewhere in between, I assume some standard of credibility has to be met. More recent cases where corroborating witnesses or accused perpetrators may still be alive will be easier to assess, but even older cases could have some kind of substantiation that would validate them. If a cluster of previously unreported cases develops around a specific unit, campground, or event during a specific period, that would be indicative that a predator was at work no matter how long ago it was.

Parents often are the abusers but the more eyes around the better. In today's environment, if a Scoutmaster said he preferred that non ASM parents didn't attend a camp out, most parents wouldn't view that well. A good YPT program has always been essential for BSA because of what it does with kids. My point is that to pat ourselves on the back for it overmuch is like praising a lifeguard for having lifeguard training. And one small point when comparing BSA with sports or other school activities: kids involved in such activities today are rarely out of the view of a security camera. Cameras are on buses, weight rooms, the school campus, playing fields, etc. There are almost always extra eyes on them. That's not the case, though, in scouts.

That is all true but you also have to look at why YPT is so necessary. I have read many comments on this board about scouters who discourage parents from attending camp outs because they feel that they get in the way of the patrol method, etc. There is no other youth organization that repeatedly has adult leaders take relatively small groups of kids to remote places for hikes or overnight camping activities. There is some of that in sports as kids get older, but it's not common. Most youth in travel sports travel and stay with their families, not coaches. Most youth sports activities are conducted in an open field or gym with parents all around. Dug outs and sidelines are in full view. Other team's coaches, umpires, facility managers are generally in view. I really don't worry at all about one coach running a game or a practice on an open field with a dozen or so kids; I do worry about two adults takings kids on a 5 hour hike or camp out. BSA's YPT program is the most comprehensive, but it should have been long ago because the nature of the activities.

You are absolutely correct. We need objective, independent data in order to figure out effective ways forward and we are not getting it. There's enough publicly available research out there conducted by other youth organizations on millennial and other trends to know we are completely and frustratingly missing the mark. BSA doesn't seem to be paying attention to any of it.

The worst part to me is that this is what National has come up with at a time when the organization really needs some strategic, innovative re-structuring based on independent outside market research. Tinkering with territories, increasing fees, and expecting that membership and recruitment quotas will assure scouting's future is just more of the same thinking that has gotten us where we are. BSA is staring its own demise in the face. If it doesn't understand how much it needs to change its way of doing business now, it likely never will. How can you meet quotas without BSA giving councils, districts, and units any tools or knowing what would work for more diverse families?

The explanation I got was that it is simply a placeholder claim. It's like saying to the court that if x, y, and z happen and I am potentially liable due to the loss of your (BSA) promised protection, I may have claims of unknown amounts depending on what happens. Lawyers can correct me if wrong.

Frankly, I think the ACA ought to be looking at scout camps as a model for how camps can run with a minimum amount of risk. I was very skeptical and concerned in the spring and through the summer, but unless I've missed something there were no major outbreaks at scout camps where scouts tented solo. Granted, the season was very limited due to truncated camp sessions and it seemed like at least a 50% closure rate, but I would really like to see a post mortem. The camps that had problems -- and there were some major ones -- were mostly non scout that housed multiple campers in fixed structures like cabins. Also, in the aftermath of the vaccine announcement, there has been a lot of cautionary data about how a real return to normal is still years away. The time it will take everyone who wants a vaccine to get one will take time, but there is also the issue regarding children as noted above as well as that so far we have no duration of immunity data, either for antibodies produced by natural infection, residual immunity provided through other aspects of the immune system, or immunity provided by a vaccine. Preliminary research has produced varied estimates. One hopes it's for years, but it could be short term and that would mean a regular revaccination schedule.

What this will do is encourage districts and councils to overlook dysfunctional COs and units in favor of chasing quotas. Same old story, different day. Additionally, most of the difficulties with recruiting more diverse units and scouts are social and economic and councils, districts, and units are ill equipped to overcome those without a lot of support.