Jump to content
Sentinel947

Youth Protection In The Digital Age.

Recommended Posts

I have no problem if that's going to be the policy.  I do have a problem with the implication that that already IS the policy.  If that is the case maybe I should just report myself to the SE for violations of the YP policy, because I know I have replied to Scouts' emails when I did not have a parent's email address.  From now on I guess I will cc the CC (sorry, I couldn't resist) and she can figure out why she is getting a copy of a response to something she never saw before.  And then the Scout can figure out why someone else is being copied.

 

And I also have a problem with the implication that it is logically a part of the no one-on-one policy.  It is a separate policy on a different subject and should be announced as such.

Edited by NJCubScouter
One more thing...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

50 years ago we as scouts used to call the SM on the phone for information all the time.  I guess that's now out of the question?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our Troop Committee created a communication structure for youth and adults that strongly encourages youth and adults to copy another adult in emails and texts.  The Scouts usually forget to do this but when I respond I always copy the parent and the CC.  Every now and then I get a phone call from a Scout and I just conduct business as I would in person.  There's really no way to do it otherwise.  It's not like you can say, "I'm hanging up now PL Johnny!  I can't be one-on-one with you over the phone!"   :confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Found this article, I'm a little conflicted on the changes. Curious to see what everybody else thinks. 

 

http://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2015/04/06/no-one-one-contact-provision-applies-digital-contact/

 

 

My question is what do you do about telephone calls? Do they require two-deep as well?

 

On emails, I always copy a parent. Now, I guess I'll have to do that with texts as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

50 years ago we as scouts used to call the SM on the phone for information all the time.  I guess that's now out of the question?

 

Stosh, 50 years ago - or in my case, 40-45 years ago - a lot of things happened that are totally out of the question today.  And 99.9 percent of the time they were perfectly innocent, just as 99.9 percent of interactions today are perfectly innocent.  (My percentage may not be exactly correct, but you know what I mean.)

 

But I don't see anywhere in that article that says you can't call a Scout on the telephone or accept a call from a Scout.  Maybe that really is the rule, because someone at National thinks it is.  But if it is, the policy should say so, not just some blog post that most Scouters don't even know exists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our Troop Committee created a communication structure for youth and adults that strongly encourages youth and adults to copy another adult in emails and texts.  The Scouts usually forget to do this but when I respond I always copy the parent and the CC.  Every now and then I get a phone call from a Scout and I just conduct business as I would in person.  There's really no way to do it otherwise.  It's not like you can say, "I'm hanging up now PL Johnny!  I can't be one-on-one with you over the phone!"   :confused:

 

Maybe you have to record the call, and tell the Scout you are recording the call.  Hey, there's a real good way to foster open communications. 

 

I am not even sure if my phone can record a call.  It probably can.  But I never even thought of trying to find out, until now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

99.9% of the time everything is above board and no problem at all.  Unfortunately it's the .1% that is the problem.  With that being said, I can guarantee 100% of the time that the .1% don't give a rat's patoot about G2SS and what it says in there.

 

It's a bit like the gun laws.  How many of those laws have been successful with keeping the guns out of the hands of criminals?  And how many of those laws have caused confusion and problems for the law-abiding people that are trying to do it right in the first place?

Edited by Stosh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Found this article, I'm a little conflicted on the changes. Curious to see what everybody else thinks.

 

http://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2015/04/06/no-one-one-contact-provision-applies-digital-contact/

 

It's interesting to read the comments on the blog post. Lots of good discussion on how YPT has moved into "safety theater" and how the no-one-on-one applied to phone calls, email and other electronic communication does nothing to increase safety and could actually hurt kids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe you have to record the call, and tell the Scout you are recording the call.  Hey, there's a real good way to foster open communications. 

 

I am not even sure if my phone can record a call.  It probably can.  But I never even thought of trying to find out, until now.

 

This made me think of the Lone Gunmen, of X-Files fame, and how they record all their phone calls on a big reel-to-reel tape recorder. There's a level of paranoia that we can get caught up in, but at the same time it doesn't take much for a one-on-one phone call to get intercepted by a parent and taken out of context.  

 

When I was younger I used to call my SM all the time when I was SPL.  That was 20 years ago.  Have things really changed that much?  With all the shows on TV like Criminal Minds, CSI: choose your city, Bones, etc it's not hard to imagine parents being hyper-aware of who their children talk to and how...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

50 years ago we as scouts used to call the SM on the phone for information all the time.  I guess that's now out of the question?

 

Maybe it's OK if you use an analog telephone.  I still have one sitting to my left.  "Western Electric.  Bell System Property."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's interesting to read the comments on the blog post. Lots of good discussion on how YPT has moved into "safety theater" and how the no-one-on-one applied to phone calls, email and other electronic communication does nothing to increase safety and could actually hurt kids.

Yeah, I helped feed that fire a little. My actual policy is a little more nuanced ...

With E-mails, I try to copy SM/Co-Advisor/Parent or other youth when possible. Has nothing to do with YPT, however. It's how you make sure a message gets read.

If I do have a one-on-one conversation with a youth, I later follow-up verbally with an adult we both trust, and summarize the gist of the conversation. IMHO, this is more reliable than copying, asking if there's a parent in the room, recording for later, filing a transcript, etc ... It's in the spirit of having an SMC in plain view. Leaders know the adult is having a private conversation, they know roughly why, they know they can get more details, and they can ask to listen in the next time if they feel the need.

Edited by qwazse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I was younger I used to call my SM all the time when I was SPL.  That was 20 years ago.  Have things really changed that much?  

 

When I was SPL I didn't have to call the SM, I could just wait until he got home from work and talk to him during dinner.  More to the point, Scouts from our troop and other troops would come to the house and my father, as an MB counselor, would take them into the downstairs room, alone, and work with them on their MB's.  And I would call an MB counselor, alone, and when our appointment came around I would walk to his house, alone (assuming he lived in the same town), and then I would meet with him in his house, alone.  And everybody was following the rules as they existed at the time.  (I was a Boy Scout from the late 60s to mid 70s.)  To my knowledge, nothing untoward ever occurred in my troop or with any of the people involved in it.  Unfortunately, as we all know, bad things did happen in other places, which is why we are where we are today.  In my opinion, it is not so much the concern of parents that has put us where we are, but the desire of National to try to prevent as many bad acts as possible by placing as many obstacles in the path of a would-be wrongdoer as possible.  It is not possible to prevent every incident, but I believe the YP Guidelines do prevent incidents from happening.  I believe in the YP Guidelines, and I have been a facilitator for the YP training, back before almost everybody took it online.

 

My problem with this blog post that Sentinel linked to is that if there is a no-texting or no-1-on-1-emailing rule (or a no 1-on-1-telephone rule), it should be clearly spelled out in the guidelines like all the other rules.  And although I said before that I didn't have a problem with the creation of such rules, I then read some of the comments under the blog and found some good points were being made.  One person mentioned the common method of avoiding one-on-one contact during a SM Conference while maintaining the confidentiality of what is said, namely by having the conference in full view of others, but far enough away so that nobody else can hear.  That has been discussed a number of times in this forum, and I believe it is mentioned in the Guide to Advancement, though I am not certain.  But the BSA blog-poster says that one-on-one electronic communications are banned because "grooming" could occur, and nobody else would be "there" to read or hear it.   Well, that about does it for the SM conference within view of all, but out of earshot, doesn't it?  We don't know what that SM is saying to that Scout.  It could be "grooming", right?  So, is that the next thing to go?  Will we no longer be able to say ANYTHING to a Scout, either in person or electronically, unless someone else is "close enough" to simultaneously hear or read what is said?

 

My new conclusion is that the BSA has not really thought this through well enough.

Edited by NJCubScouter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I have said before. YPT has been mis-titled.  I do not follow certain procedures in order to keep kids safe, I do it to keep the police off my front porch with a warrant.  I have been working with youth for over 40 years, had a couple of false charges which I would have counter sued had the youth not been protected by disclosure laws.  I was later told the boy was praised for his courage to speak up.  It was all a lie, but that didn't matter.

 

Ever since my radar senses have been at full warp speed.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I have said before. YPT has been mis-titled.  I do not follow certain procedures in order to keep kids safe, I do it to keep the police off my front porch with a warrant.  I have been working with youth for over 40 years, had a couple of false charges which I would have counter sued had the youth not been protected by disclosure laws.  I was later told the boy was praised for his courage to speak up.  It was all a lie, but that didn't matter.

 

Ever since my radar senses have been at full warp speed.

And that is one of the risks of today's environment of paranoia. Since people are looking in every corner for hidden "predators", it is easy for a false accusation to cause a lot of damage. One thing that most training doesn’t mention is that even though there are predators out there, they are in fact pretty rare. Things like car accidents are a much bigger threat to children then sexual predators (don’t get me started on the whole “don’t ever leave you child alone in a car†silliness).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×