Real Risk Perceived Risk and Mandatory Reportin

[Beavah 205]

Yah, so let me set up some background here. Da released ineligible volunteer files for a 20-30 year period number roughly a thousand per decade. Now some are false positives, many more real positives were probably never reported, and many of da real positives actually never abused scouts but were flagged for abuse that occurred outside of scoutin'. With da total number of adult volunteers and a loose guess at adult turnover for da period, we can guess da rate of bad guys in Scoutin' as being about 1 in a thousand.

 

Now, let's say that at some point, a genuine molester will be caught in a YP violation within or related to Scouting 90% of the time. Yep, molesters do these things, and alert folks will notice.

 

At the same time, occasionally ordinary decent scouters make judgment calls or forget or just get put in a funny position by circumstances so that 10% of 'em have violated YP guidelines just in da course of life.

 

Now, if you see someone who violates YP guidelines, what's the chance that the fellow is actually someone who would take advantage of kids?

 

I'll wait....

 

Make your best guess...

 

 

[Beavah 205]

If yeh have 10,000 scouters, then 10 of 'em will be molesters, and 9 of da ten would be "caught" by a YP violation. Of da other 9,990 scouters, 10% of 'em will also be "caught" by a YP violation (probably more if we take a very pedantic and literal view of what constitutes a violation).

 

So da probability that someone violatin' da YP guidelines is actually a danger to kids is 9/999 or less than 1%.

 

How does that compare to what yeh guessed up above? If you're like most people, yeh guessed way high. That's a common error in human perception, which leads to many bad judgments and policy decisions.

 

Da reality in this case is that for every reportable YP violation, you'll being crying "Wolf!" 110 times and IDing a bad guy once. You'll be dead wrong about somethin' being a "grooming situation" over 99% of da time, and defaming a good volunteer in da process.

 

Right now our social service agencies are taxed to the limit across da nation. What do yeh suppose would happen if we mandated reporting of "suspicion" on that basis? Do yeh think that social services could increase their number of investigations a hundredfold?

 

Within da BSA, do yeh suppose that an SE or Chartered Org. is likely to take meaningful action on a report if they get 110 cries of "Wolf!" on average before they might get to anything meriting actual review?

 

How many of da 110 good volunteers do yeh suppose will stay in Scouting after someone has cried "Wolf!" on them? Of course, if yeh reduce da number of good volunteers, there will be a higher percentage of wolves at the same time that da authorities are takin' such cries less seriously.

 

This is da real challenge of perception when dealin' with mandatory reporting by non-professionals and others. When da safety of kids depends on havin' limited resources directed toward da real risks, and on havin' lots of good people around so the kids can't easily be isolated, yeh have to be very thoughtful about da unintended consequences of an approach that isn't mindful of da difference between perception and genuine risk.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Is there any number in there that you didn't just make up? I mean, you could be right, you could be wrong. But you don't know.

[Twocubdad 665]

I think your assumptions are low. Moving forward, it would be a reasonable post-Sandusky assumption that the number of reports overall go way up -- public awareness, policy changes, new training standards, paranoia -- are all likely to drive the numbers up. Particularly compared to the '60s thru '80s, I think you will see the number of reports mushroom. BSA's immediate reaction to Penn State -- requiring all suspicions being reported to authorities -- is a good example. And I would be surprised if BSA does NOT add to the increasingly strict and conflicting YP rules. More YP rules means more YP violations which means more reports.

 

If the orders to Scout Executives are to crack down on YP violations, I wouldn't be surprised if we came to the point of seeing significant numbers of volunteers dismissed for policy violations, regardless of any suspicion of any actual impropriorities.

 

My fear is we turn youth protection into Security Theater, ala TSA.

[Kristian 10]

The only one the system be it BSA or otherwise is really designed to protect is the system itself.

 

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-04-03/news/31283027_1_child-abuse-social-services-alyssa

 

[Beavah 205]

Is there any number in there that you didn't just make up? I mean, you could be right, you could be wrong. But you don't know.

 

All of 'em are relatively conservative estimates based on da current data, eh?

 

But it doesn't matter.

 

Yeh can fill in almost any numbers and da math still works the same. What I'm pointin' out is a well-known and well-researched reasoning bias which applies across many fields. Look up Bayesian statistics with respect to da medical field, on things like da way 85% of physicians overweight positive mammogram results.

 

We humans tend not to think in terms of Type II error, da false positives. We tend to make judgments simply on da basis of the evidence for a proposition, instead of balancing da positive evidence with the likelihood of being wrong in terms of generatin' false positives. This bias makes for profoundly poor decisions in favor of "doing something" for specific small-population problems without considerin' da unintended consequences for da large population.

 

We're willin' to torture folks or compromise civil liberties over da very small risk of terrorism without considerin' how many ordinary folks will be harmed by "false positive" responses. We're willin' to prohibit laser tag and paintball over da extremely small risk of (something?) without considerin' what da impact of the loss of popular activities is on a very large population. There's real evidence that bicycle helmets reduce da (already very low) risk of minor head injuries in individual cases. As we learned in a recent NYTimes article, however, imposin' a helmet requirement on everyone to reduce that small risk also dramatically reduces the amount of bicycle riding, which in the end increases da risk of all sorts of injuries because drivers become less used to cyclists and more likely to hit da helmeted ones that remain, and there's less development of cycling infrastructure. On and on, eh?

 

This isn't unique to YP stuff, it's a general human reasoning bias. IMO, it's exacerbated in da political and policy world, because policy is more apt to be generated by "pointing with alarm" and appealin' to emotion, in da way fred8033 does in da previous thread. That amplifies da bias.

 

Beavah

 

[DeanRx 69]

Yeah Beavah-

 

I came up with 1 out of 1000 and 90% that were actually abusers with the 10% being false positives... that would mean somewhere around 0.09%, actually less than 1/10th of 1%.

 

I think that for all the good the BSA does in getting the word out to be vigilant and have mandatory training - it does an even better job at scaring the crap out of everyone.

 

There needs to be some "common sense" applied. Or maybe some role playing senerios in which a good response is discussed.

 

I have seen YPG violations. Most very minor. Everyone I've ever seen, the person was unaware or forgot or didn't think it was a YPG issue.

 

Most often its a one-on-one thing... i.e. adult going to the latrine with a lone scout because they both have to go. Or more common, an adult leader walking into a bathroom that already has a scout in it at a unit function. Technicially a violation, but would you report it?

 

The driving in a car without a second scout often comes up. Especially true when dropping off multiple scouts at multiple homes if your own youth is not with you.

 

Even Scoutmaster's conferences... how to have them be "private" without putting scout or scouter at risk for a valid or fabricated clime of abuse.

 

All are sticky situations that require attention and a unit consensus on how they are to be addressed. NONE, in my book need to be elevated to the DE or SE, unless a leader has been "reminded" repeatedly and chooses NOT to follow the quidelines.

 

Dean

[DeanRx 69]

Beavah-

 

Its also because of the inherent bias in the situation...

 

If you speak out against the draconian practice of suspecting everyone... then you yourself must be suspect! (as was pointed out in the OP thread). After all, its about protecting kids, so WHY would you be against it unless YOU want to hurt them !! or at least don't CARE about them as much as I do... goes the thinking.

 

Its akin to making a logical statement against a minority (even if its supported by data) - you must be racist.

 

Or more timely - the razor blades in Halloween candy scary we put in our kids all the time.

 

Add to this the fact there are millions of $$ and many jobs created by scaring the begesus out of people... and no wonder the fear gets propogated and inflated.

 

When the data point(s) have a perception of one side being highly emotionally charged or very terrible for you and the other side has the perception of no harm in being overzealously applied... the arguement gets skewed from the start - regardless of what the data might reveal or what the subject being studied happens to be.

 

Dean

[SeattlePioneer 144]

Consider the extent to which young people are deemed by law to be competent to consent to various activities:

 

Below age 21 they can't drink, but in increasing numbers of areas they are competent to buy and use marijuana.

 

Below age 18 they can't sign contracts or vote,

 

at age twelve or thirteen, they are deemed competent to consent to having an abortion, but their ability to consent to having the sex that got them pregnant may be limited.

 

The law doesn't trust a parent who might refuse permission to their child to have an abortion.

 

BSA has no legal obligation to make reports to police about hearsay reports of child abuse, but is attacked when it doesn't even though parents made no such report to police and may not have wanted to make such reports either.

 

Unfortunately, the public and the law wants what it wants even and wants someone to hang when something happens that they don't like.

 

This seems to be fanned mostly by a conspiracy between sensation seeking columnists and commentators and money hungry plaintiff's lawyers. Nothing new there.

[Second Class 49]

"Make your best guess...."

 

What is the point of this question?

 

Some molesters may be or are in scouting?

Not reporting a seen violation of YPT that eventually turns bad?

 

What's the point of the question?

 

[fred8033 1593]

yadda yadda yadda ... The danger isn't about false positives and statistics. The danger is in justifying "interpretting" youth protection rules because of tangential distacting arguements like the statistics of false positives.

 

If you notice an adult going into a bathroom with a non-related youth such that they would be alone together for a period of time, you mention it to the adult that it's something we try to avoid. If it's a pattern that ASM X goes into the bathroom when scout Y is in there, then you deal with it.

 

If you hear a scout can't come to a meeting because he doesn't have a ride, you find a way to get him there without violating the no one-on-one contact rule. BUT ... if you can't find a solution ... the scout misses the meeting. That's the right solution. The wrong solution is you pick him up alone and get him to the meeting.

 

Most importantly, if you have an adult who wants to tap dance around youth protection rules, you get that adult out of the program. But if you can't get the adult out or get the adult to follow the rules, you get your kids out of that program.

 

...

 

I read this article today, I find the "Eyewitness inaction" and "Stepping in" sections interesting. http://www.livescience.com/17031-penn-state-child-abuse-eyewitness-psychology.html

 

 

 

[Twocubdad 665]

If you notice an adult going into a bathroom with a non-related youth such that they would be alone together for a period of time, you mention it to the adult that it's something we try to avoid. If it's a pattern that ASM X goes into the bathroom when scout Y is in there, then you deal with it.

 

Are you kidding me? If you notice an adult going into a bathroom with a non-related youth such that they would be alone together for a period of time, you go into the bathroom and find out what the hell is going on! Take a big stick, you may need it!

 

I've been reading these two threads and have started to comment a couple times. But Beav has made about every point I would have made. The idea that we are bound by YP guidelines in our relationship with youth who happen to be Scouts is rediculous. If that were the intent of the policy, don't you think BSA would make that point explicitly?

[Beavah 205]

Yah, fred8033, this is a different thread than about driving, eh? Let's keep that discussion over in da other thread. Unresponsive bystanders is also an interestin' issue, which you could spin off a different thread about which might be interestin'. I'm very familiar with that literature, but it's quite different than what we're talkin' about here.

 

Second Class, da point of this thread in Issues & Politics was to highlight and discuss poor policy or decision making arising from a well known form of judgment bias, which overweights direct evidence in decision-making rather than considerin' that decisions are in effect a choice between possibilities. By goin' with evidence of effect (90% of molesters eventually are seen being alone with a kid), most people don't make da right choice in terms of understandin' risk (the chance that someone who is seen being alone with a kid is actually a molester is much less than 1%), and therefore don't make da most rational personal or policy choices. My grandfather was one of those, eh? He lived through the Great Depression and learned that banks and da market were risky (they are, with ample evidence!). Yet da long-term risk of banks compared with other choices like keepin' money in a safe at home are actually small, so his personal financial choices, based on good evidence, were poor. They didn't consider Type II error.

 

I'm seein' it a lot these days given that it's politics season, and da thread this was spun off of was an interestin' form of it from a scouting "policy" perspective.

 

So it's just an old furry critter sharin' thoughts and reflections for discussion, nothing more. My small way of tryin' to make up for da folks on both sides of the aisle who like to ignore science or such.

 

Beavah

 

 

[Tampa Turtle 1011]

This shelled creature will jump in Mr furry creature.

 

I agree with 2cub your numbers "feel" low but agree that there are a lot of false positives.

 

Furthermore multiple violations of YPT does not a molester make just like multiple violations of GSS does not make a homicidal maniac. And I have, in a moment of forgetfulness, forgotten the rules too.

 

But, a fellow who keeps violating the policy is exercising poor risk management to the group as a whole.

 

What I wonder is I read somewhere that the 3 organizations that made the most settlements were the (1)Catholic Church (2)BSA (3)United Methodist Church.

 

As a (new)Methodist I wonder why they have avoided all the wrath? Is it because they do not have a strong identity in the public mind? Is it because as a major Charter sponsor they got lumped into BSA cases? I just do not know?

 

I think we will see some guys dismissed unjustly. There will always be some injustice in that kind of system--On what side of the scale should we err--the Scouter or the Scout?

 

I do not think BSA has much room to negotiate the moral high ground on this--the public just assumes there was a CYA cover up and most trust is gone for the old cases.

[WasE61 23]

I don't expect any significant change in the number of reports.

 

Why?

 

Because parents seem to have this idea that the "problems are in that group, over there", not in the group that I pick for my kid. BT had that conversation.

 

The primary reason being if the parent admits that there is a problem in the group that he has selected for his child, it means the he has failed as a parent, and placed their child in danger.

 

=====

 

As for the numbers, I recall the saying, "There's lies, damn lies and statistics."

 

Say for every 10,000 volunteers, 1% are pedophiles. Each of the 100 pedophiles molests 10 boys. Of the 1000 boys molested, 250 become pedophiles and become volunteers. The 100 pedophiles has become 350...and that's just one generation.

 

But hey, that's just all made up numbers....isn't it?