malraux

If you scroll down to the grid of who can do what on a device project, lion and tiger youth are not checked for paintbrushes/painting.

I don't know how long it has been the rule, but it was certainly an element of my baloo training back in 2018.

https://www.scouting.org/health-and-safety/gss/gss03/ My impression is that language has been there for a while, but I might be mistaken. Also that is specific to camping, but I again am pretty sure I've seen similar language elsewhere for other events. And its worth pointing out that this language technically makes most webelos visits to troop campouts problematic.

This has been policy for a long while. I forget where it is written down, but it isn't just a covid thing. It isn't strongly enforced except when units want to hold a district camporee without district oversight.

My only caution with allowing any registered leader to count as per ypt is in a unit who's charter org wants more detailed background checks, interviews, or training requirements.

its more that if I must register as a leader to observe, then you can't also have it where every parent can observe everything.

The cub units that survived has done pretty well with recruitment. Still down relative to 2019, mainly because units folded over covid. edit: my impression is that troop numbers are still hurt because they have trouble getting back lost scouts. Hoping that crossover goes well.

I think its entirely appropriate to either say that you don't have time for a full ceremony now, just mail me the regalia. Alternatively, 5 minutes before or 5 minutes after a district roundtable, committee meeting, etc. would also be fine. Or lunch/break time at a university of scouting event, etc. A short thing a one's own unit is fine, but intruding into someone else's unit seems weird.

Which part of this rule is a leader leading a hike with multiple scouts breaking? Assuming there are other leaders elsewhere at a campout or other event wherein hiking is one part of the total activity. It does get kinda fuzzy defining what counts as a scouting activity when a campout has multiple elements, I'll admit. But there is no requirement to have multiple adults always together under the current rules (though it might be a good idea to change that). There's a difference between should and must language.

Especially as the current standard is that you must follow ypt guidelines inside and outside of scouting. Its not practical to always have a registered adult buddy outside of scouting.

My unit currently runs that way in scout book, that girls and boys dens are mixed in the database. It does make administration much easier and no one has yelled at us about it.

I do like the Canadian approach. In short, parents have a cheaper/faster path to get clearance to attend events like campout, but that clearance is only good for 5 events. After those 5 events, they must register and have a more detailed check. That seems to balance the two competing concerns. more parents at events is good for helping address youth on youth abuse/bullying/etc.

Also if you are integrating it into summer camp, no one wants to load up on a bus to drive to a school. And while you can get access to classrooms occasionally, its much harder to get access to fancy equipment like auto shop services.

Bullying and youth on youth abuse are very interrelated though.

To the extent that it matters to units right now, its about the UMC and others hesitating on recharter. At my LC they are slowly dropping DEs and other staff. Only about half the districts have a staff person at this point, one camp has no staff, etc. Without recruitment I dunno if the council will survive to the end of bankruptcy.

Its more that I get really leery of very wide zero tolerance policies and was giving a specific example.

Yeah, big difference between two 12 year olds sharing a SI swimsuit issue and a SM showing graphic stuff on his phone. Both require a response, but it doesn't sit well with me to say that the 12 yo should get kicked out of scouts and reported to police for that action vs guided in appropriateness.

I think there’s a difference between tolerating it vs expecting it. I expect that there will be some, because humans are humans. i would see our goal as preventing the situations most likely to cause issues, having good screening mechanisms to prevent known abusers in, and making sure that everyone is working to detect problems when they are at the lowest intensity possible (which also means the lowest harm possible).

I do think it’s reasonable that if we are going to approach this with having council scout executives able to exercise judgement over what is actually problematic instead of strict zero tolerance policies, then having an auditor come behind to be sure the SE is using appropriate judgement is a good thing.

Safety of members seems to be something like accounting wherein its really good to have outside eyes on things.

His point one that youth on youth abuse and is greatly heightened with large age differentials that we currently see in the scouts BSA program is concerning.

Looking to the north at how Scouts Canada does things, it seems in line with what Mr Johnson would envision. https://www.scouts.ca/resources/bpp/policies/volunteer-screening-policy.html Their volunteer screen procedures are also more strict. https://www.scouts.ca/resources/bpp/procedures/volunteer-screening-procedure.html Of course, Scouts Canada has a yearly fee of ~$180.

Taking his recommendations of limiting age ranges in contact with each other also probably means splitting the scouts BSA program into 11-14 youth and 15-18 aged youth, similar to the scouts and venture scouts groupings in other countries.

Either a registered leader, or create a somewhat cheaper/steamlined background checked certification.

Yep, that is my concern. The combination of cost and time will make it very difficult to recruit youth and get them on a campout quickly. And because in Cubs every youth has their own parent watching them, I don't know that the situation is as high risk as it is on a troop campout.