BSA vs Other Programs/Society - Youth Protection Comparison

[qwazse]

8 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Again, "schools" vs one single organization is apples to turnips. Also, I'm sure you're aware of the variance and scale of difference in safety between schools in public schools in Memphis and, say, those in Pleasanton, CA. Compare MI State with Elon University in NC. Which level of "school" do you mean? How many have on duty law enforcement and/or metal detectors? Our oldest son went to middle and high school in a pretty affluent counties and school districts and had them. That's a bit of a deterrent. These are simply not relevant or apt standards of comparison. As you also know, I'm sure, school counselors and teachers have a much higher rate of reporting than almost any other population group. Your statement may be "comforting" to recite, but not viably or objectively. 

For those who want to look into more robust (but certainly not void of limitations) analysis:

Global:

Barth, J., Bermetz, L., Heim, E., Trelle, S., & Tonia, T. (2013). The current prevalence of child sexual abuse worldwide: a systematic review and meta-analysis. International journal of public health, 58(3), 469-483.

National:

Finkelhor, D., Shattuck, A., Turner, H. A., & Hamby, S. L. (2014). The lifetime prevalence of child sexual abuse and sexual assault assessed in late adolescence. Journal of Adolescent Health, 55(3), 329-333.

I chose a 7% "background rate" based on older research that extrapolated to age 18 because that was specific to boys through adolescence. That rate is within the probable rate reported by 17 year olds in Finkelhor et al.

Note: BSA also attempted to track predators of female youth, e.g. Explorers. So the risk to females has been a concern. Does the TCC have a breakdown of victims by sex? I might have a tally of female youth participants somewhere for us to get a handle on this.

This is not to say that the YP program itself has made scouting "100x safer" than background. Boys at risk due to poverty or some other unstable family situation might never enroll.

Furthermore, the percent of claimants joining a class is not the same as respondents in the affirmative in a broad-based survey. It's not clear at all which one would yield a more accurate rate.

[elitts]

2 hours ago, yknot said:

Yes, and that's exactly what I'm talking about. Statistics such as this that include girls can't be used for comparison to abuse that occurred in boy scouts because it has with a few exceptions largely been committed against boys in our organization. While anecdotally believed to be underreported, the sexual abuse rate among boys is a fraction of what it is among girls. Finally, this is an international report and cannot be used to compare to US or European rates because of cultural differences, largely regarding girls, such as you see in parts of Africa and South America. 

It is possible that boys are actually safer in boy scouts, but there are no valid studies that actually compare the rates of abuse among boys in scouting to abuse rates among boys in the broader world and can support that. Until there are such studies, the only hard numbers we have to go by are what has been reported to the places I noted. 

No, they can't be used effectively in a direct comparison with statistical modelling with a provable level of reliability.  However, that doesn't mean they don't provide useful data points for very rough comparisons. 

1 hour ago, ThenNow said:

Again, "schools" vs one single organization is apples to turnips. Also, I'm sure you're aware of the variance and scale of difference in safety between public schools in Memphis and, say, those in Pleasanton, CA. Compare MI State with Elon University in NC. Which level of "school" do you mean? How many have on duty law enforcement and/or metal detectors? Our oldest son went to middle and high school in a pretty affluent counties and school districts and had them. That's a bit of a deterrent. These are simply not relevant or apt standards of comparison. As you also know, I'm sure, school counselors and teachers have a much higher rate of reporting than almost any other population group. Your statement may be "comforting" to recite, but not viably or objectively. 

Regardless of the fact that there is a BSA National, each of the BSA troops/packs/crews truly is a discrete organization.  The way they operate, the level of supervision and the rules they actually observe all vary drastically between groups, regardless of the fact that they are supposed to be operating in mostly the same way.

 

Edited May 18, 2021 by elitts

[yknot]

58 minutes ago, qwazse said:

National:

Finkelhor, D., Shattuck, A., Turner, H. A., & Hamby, S. L. (2014). The lifetime prevalence of child sexual abuse and sexual assault assessed in late adolescence. Journal of Adolescent Health, 55(3), 329-333.

I chose a 7% "background rate" based on older research that extrapolated to age 18 because that was specific to boys through adolescence. That rate is within the probable rate reported by 17 year olds in Finkelhor et al.

Note: BSA also attempted to track predators of female youth, e.g. Explorers. So the risk to females has been a concern. Does the TCC have a breakdown of victims by sex? I might have a tally of female youth participants somewhere for us to get a handle on this.

This is not to say that the YP program itself has made scouting "100x safer" than background. Boys at risk due to poverty or some other unstable family situation might never enroll.

Furthermore, the percent of claimants joining a class is not the same as respondents in the affirmative in a broad-based survey. It's not clear at all which one would yield a more accurate rate.

Thank you. More information is always good. However, I will point out that, once again, this report is extrapolating data from other secondary sources.  It is just collating responses from three separately conducted surveys done among different age groups in different years. Even combined, it is a very small data set. Some studies like these are useful when they can provide a meta analysis of large groups of like reports. In this case, it's interesting but not very useful when making any kind of informed conclusion about scouting. 

9 minutes ago, elitts said:

No, they can't be used effectively in a direct comparison with statistical modelling with a provable level of reliability.  However, that doesn't mean they don't provide useful data points for very rough comparisons. 

 

I think that's fine for general opining, questions, and rumination, but when it rises to the level of someone trying to somewhat absolve BSA or claim that it is safer for boys or does a better job of protecting boys, that is not honest at all. We don't know that at all.  

[qwazse]

9 hours ago, yknot said:Thank you. More information is always good. However, I will point out that, once again, this report is extrapolating data from other secondary sources.  It is just collating responses from three separately conducted surveys done among different age groups in different years. Even combined, it is a very small data set. Some studies like these are useful when they can provide a meta analysis of large groups of like reports. In this case, it's interesting but not very useful when making any kind of informed conclusion about scouting. 

I think that's fine for general opining, questions, and rumination, but when it rises to the level of someone trying to somewhat absolve BSA or claim that it is safer for boys or does a better job of protecting boys, that is not honest at all. We don't know that at all.  

You’re welcome. I included the other reference for those who’d prefer meta-analysis. In that:paper the prevalence among males was 8%. That’s consistent with other work that combined numerous studies.
I understand the perception that meta-analysis gives more precise estimates, but they, too, may be “collating responses from separately conducted studies.” I’ve consulted on several, and they often don’t shed more light than the most recent one or two studies. That’s usually because the peer review process puts increasing demands that authors present data that are an improvement over what’s come before. So far, I haven’t found a paper that puts the overall rate lower than 5% of US males.

I’m sorry to say that the litigious environment around social crimes like this will make it highly unlikely that we’ll have a finely tuned survey of a random sample in the US any time soon. A study like that is more likely to succeed in countries where institutions don’t face a threat of extinction if they allow investigators in,  and where sexual assault victims feel less stigma and isolation if they report.

But, one can’t simply sweep the published background rate aside and claim that BSA has no reason to think it provides an environment with reduced risk of sexual assault. Boys are safer in scouting. They might be arrogant. But not without reason.

 

[yknot]

1 hour ago, qwazse said:

You’re welcome. I included the other reference for those who’d prefer meta-analysis. In that:paper the prevalence among males was 8%. That’s consistent with other work that combined numerous studies.
I understand the perception that meta-analysis gives more precise estimates, but they, too, may be “collating responses from separately conducted studies.” I’ve consulted on several, and they often don’t shed more light than the most recent one or two studies. That’s usually because the peer review process puts increasing demands that authors present data that are an improvement over what’s come before. So far, I haven’t found a paper that puts the overall rate lower than 5% of US males.

I’m sorry to say that the litigious environment around social crimes like this will make it highly unlikely that we’ll have a finely tuned survey of a random sample in the US any time soon. A study like that is more likely to succeed in countries where institutions don’t face a threat of extinction if they allow investigators in,  and where sexual assault victims feel less stigma and isolation if they report.

But, one can’t simply sweep the published background rate aside and claim that BSA has no reason to think it provides an environment with reduced risk of sexual assault. Boys are safer in scouting. They might be arrogant. But not without reason.

 

Qwazse, the global study is irrelevant for consideration in the US. You simply can't compare global experiences in different cultures with US experiences. We don't have child brides at the age of 12 or 13 or female circumcision. We don't have manhood rituals for boys at 13, etc., etc. If the truth is that we cannot conduct such studies in the US because of liability issue, that doesn't mean we get to make stuff up based on what we "think". 

[qwazse]

7 hours ago, yknot said:

Qwazse, the global study is irrelevant for consideration in the US. You simply can't compare global experiences in different cultures with US experiences. We don't have child brides at the age of 12 or 13 or female circumcision. We don't have manhood rituals for boys at 13, etc., etc. If the truth is that we cannot conduct such studies in the US because of liability issue, that doesn't mean we get to make stuff up based on what we "think". 

You are making gross assumptions about the rest of the world’s cultural norms. But let’s run with that. Supposing that males were forced into some form of culturally normalized ritual of genital manipulation by adults. That would not be reported as abuse. The numbers reported from a given country are unwanted and unacceptable advances. So those countries will report lower rates where our fairly conservative but vocal would pull it up.

But here’s a meta-analysis that breaks it down by country and sex. From the USA they acquired data from 57 studies with 99,000 males surveyed and found the same rate:

Stoltenborgh, M., Van Ijzendoorn, M. H., Euser, E. M., & Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J. (2011). A global perspective on child sexual abuse: Meta-analysis of prevalence around the world. Child maltreatment, 16(2), 79-101.

I am really trying to find a study that shows the rate of child sexual abuse in general US population to be lower than 5%. So far, none.

[ThenNow]

7 minutes ago, qwazse said:

I am really trying to find a study that shows the rate of child sexual abuse in general US population to be lower than 5%. So far, none.

I'm selecting this excerpt for no good reason, just to ask a question about the line of reasoning and argument. What is the point of this discussion? Is it to show that the BSA's incidence of child sexual abuse isn't all that bad, comparatively, regardless the viability of those comparisons? Even assuming they are viable? Is it to affirm YPT? Mild form self-exoneration or placation? I just don't get the point, relative to the Chapter 11 and the claims filed.

To me, this all sounds like, "Hey, guys. I know it looks bad, but we're really not that bad. See! Everyone else is worse. Whew!" What am I missing?

[qwazse]

  

18 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

I'm selecting this excerpt for no good reason, just to ask a question about the line of reasoning and argument. What is the point of this discussion? Is it to show that the BSA's incidence of child sexual abuse isn't all that bad, comparatively, regardless the viability of those comparisons? Even assuming they are viable? Is it to affirm YPT? Mild form self-exoneration or placation? I just don't get the point, relative to the Chapter 11 and the claims filed.

To me, this all sounds like, "Hey, guys. I know it looks bad, but we're really not that bad. See! Everyone else is worse. Whew!" What am I missing?

There are several reasons:

• As I've mentioned before, the survivors who've come forward to me have all been victimized outside of scouting. Same for the predators who I've had the misfortune of meeting. This is the more typical American experience.
• I think the simplest reason for this is that YPT is not applied across all youth activities. Those of us who've seen our youth march off to sports or church camps should know that this is true.
• Many attribute BSA's motive as purely fiduciary -- that they are just trying to keep their jobs. But they may also see a loss of their assets as denying youth an opportunity to be 10 to 100x less likely to be victimized.
• You and others have cited raw numbers of claims as if it is some sort of justification that demands retribution. I am merely putting it in a public health perspective. Comparing rates ... that's what we do. It's how we know that Sars-Cov-2 is worse than Ebola.

There are obvious open questions:

• The .07%, although discovered using an unprecedented media campaign, may still be an underestimate.
• Likewise, the population percentages might be an underestimate because in most studies, there was no motivation to answer in the affirmative. You pointed out that even under the most confidential of conditions, participants in these surveys may under-report and even suppress memories.
• A public health perspective does not always translate into criminology. It certainly is far removed from civil litigation.
• Scouts at risk vary as a function of age, sex and cohort. So, choice of denominator is extremely complicated. There is ongoing independent analysis of BSA's IVF to try to parameterize that. I'm not expecting a paper anytime soon. Sociology is hard.

I have not attempted to sway the .07%-ers one way or the other. But I do think that knocking something that is 90% to 99% effective because it is not 100% effective does not put one on a moral high ground. Leverage in negotiation is not moral high ground.

My motivation? I want kids to be safer. Show me a strategy that makes them safer and I'll favor it.

[MattR]

11 minutes ago, qwazse said:

But I do think that knocking something that is 90% to 99% effective because it is not 100% effective

What do you mean by "knocking"? Punishment for a crime? Are you saying there should be no punishment for the crimes? 

My guess is your fear is that this will destroy scouting? If so, that's a very different topic. This one sounds like a statistical argument as to why the whole thing should be dropped. Getting back to my human dignity argument so many pages ago, that's not anything I'd get behind.

[yknot]

 

1 hour ago, ThenNow said:

I'm selecting this excerpt for no good reason, just to ask a question about the line of reasoning and argument. What is the point of this discussion? Is it to show that the BSA's incidence of child sexual abuse isn't all that bad, comparatively, regardless the viability of those comparisons? Even assuming they are viable? Is it to affirm YPT? Mild form self-exoneration or placation? I just don't get the point, relative to the Chapter 11 and the claims filed.

To me, this all sounds like, "Hey, guys. I know it looks bad, but we're really not that bad. See! Everyone else is worse. Whew!" What am I missing?

That's the takeaway point that I am getting as well and that is why I think this line of thought is so dangerous for the future health of any post bankruptcy BSA. It won't get another chance to get youth protection wrong. Pulling out studies and statistics that aren't comparable or are questionable in defense is simply not helpful. And the oblique message to past victims and any future victims that, despite the terrible things that happened to you,  you were and are safer in scouting than anywhere else is just, well, ludicrous. That message would land DOA with most prospective new parents.

 

21 minutes ago, qwazse said:

  

There are several reasons:

• As I've mentioned before, the survivors who've come forward to me have all been victimized outside of scouting. Same for the predators who I've had the misfortune of meeting. This is the more typical American experience.
• I think the simplest reason for this is that YPT is not applied across all youth activities. Those of us who've seen our youth march off to sports or church camps should know that this is true.
• Many attribute BSA's motive as purely fiduciary -- that they are just trying to keep their jobs. But they may also see a loss of their assets as denying youth an opportunity to be 10 to 100x less likely to be victimized.
• You and others have cited raw numbers of claims as if it is some sort of justification that demands retribution. I am merely putting it in a public health perspective. Comparing rates ... that's what we do. It's how we know that Sars-Cov-2 is worse than Ebola.

There are obvious open questions:

• The .07%, although discovered using an unprecedented media campaign, may still be an underestimate.
• Likewise, the population percentages might be an underestimate because in most studies, there was no motivation to answer in the affirmative. You pointed out that even under the most confidential of conditions, participants in these surveys may under-report and even suppress memories.
• A public health perspective does not always translate into criminology. It certainly is far removed from civil litigation.
• Scouts at risk vary as a function of age, sex and cohort. So, choice of denominator is extremely complicated. There is ongoing independent analysis of BSA's IVF to try to parameterize that. I'm not expecting a paper anytime soon. Sociology is hard.

I have not attempted to sway the .07%-ers one way or the other. But I do think that knocking something that is 90% to 99% effective because it is not 100% effective does not put one on a moral high ground. Leverage in negotiation is not moral high ground.

My motivation? I want kids to be safer. Show me a strategy that makes them safer and I'll favor it.

Again, I think the issue is that any statements that rely on anecdotal reports, such as the ones you outline, aren't useful. Studies that don't compare apples to apples aren't relevant. In the vacuum of relevant studies, we do have some hard numbers such as the BSA bankruptcy. I agree that that those numbers need to be viewed carefully, however, I think it's also a mistake to think you can compare actual claims, where someone has had to put themselves out there in public to some degree, with answers to anonymous surveys. Had BSA ever done comparable surveying, who knows what the percentage would have been. You cannot say the level of abuse in scouting is .07% because that's not true. We don't know what it is. We don't know if it's less or more than the norm. All we can say with honesty is that we know it's a lot.  

[johnsch322]

26 minutes ago, qwazse said:

As I've mentioned before, the survivors who've come forward to me have all been victimized outside of scouting. Same for the predators who I've had the misfortune of meeting. This is the more typical American experience.

This is a strange conversation.  The reason that BSA is in Bankruptcy is the abuse not because they had not payed their normal course of business obligations.  I can say from my experience and I would tend to believe still occurs young boys/men are ashamed and confused after abuse and will not reveal to others in the aftermath of abuse.  This would make any study moot. No one will know until 10 to 20 years from now if the YPT policies that have been successful.  Some of the policy may work some may not.  Just the fact that the Boy Scouts consists of young boys will always make it a magnet for pedophiles who desire them.  

[qwazse]

59 minutes ago, MattR said:

What do you mean by "knocking"? Punishment for a crime? Are you saying there should be no punishment for the crimes? 

My guess is your fear is that this will destroy scouting? If so, that's a very different topic. This one sounds like a statistical argument as to why the whole thing should be dropped. Getting back to my human dignity argument so many pages ago, that's not anything I'd get behind.

There should not be a punishment for crime reduction. No dignity is gained by exacting pounds of flesh from those who reduce crime.

On the other hand BSA thought it was more than 99% effective. That's the arrogance I described some months ago. I guess the question then hinges on what the punishment for arrogance should be. And the current answer is long, protracted negotiations.

As I've always stated, scouting will happen absent BSA. There is enough literature and media for boys and girls to launch out and do it on their own. Unfortunately, there is also enough literature for people of ill-will to learn how to infiltrate such youth. The 21st century has the potential to be quite violent on our nation's youth.

46 minutes ago, yknot said:

 

... Had BSA ever done comparable surveying, who knows what the percentage would have been. You cannot say the level of abuse in scouting is .07% because that's not true. We don't know what it is. We don't know if it's less or more than the norm. All we can say with honesty is that we know it's a lot.  

@yknot yeah sure, "Figures lie and lairs figure." But you have to always ask how they've done it.

I have not made any attempt to lower the .07% figure to account for suspected false claims. I have not attempted to pick the largest possible denominator.

Nor have I made an attempt to cite any literature that came up with extreme background rates. I haven't use Australia's rates in place of America. I've not tried to narrow the population more narrowly than what is BSA's target demographic.

If you think I haven't done good enough. That's fine. Do better.

Arguing that we can't know the rates isn't good enough. By that logic, one could claim that the background rate is 21%, and BSA 99.6% effective. But, one would be saying it without foundation. I am just trying to provide a foundation ... one that might help improve discernment.
How could this help? Let's say in the next 50 years BSA continues and it turns out that 10,000 victims come forward. They might claim some it is due to some improved YP.  That they are 5 times better.  But, if over the next 5 decades their cumulative youth membership only reaches 500,000, their rate would have increased threefold.

Edited May 19, 2021 by qwazse

[qwazse]

45 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

... No one will know until 10 to 20 years from now if the YPT policies that have been successful.  Some of the policy may work some may not.  Just the fact that the Boy Scouts consists of young boys will always make it a magnet for pedophiles who desire them.  

@johnsch322, it's hard to say if and how anyone will know. These things are most successfully tracked in nations with a centralized health system. And, that is simply not us.

[fred8033]

On 5/14/2021 at 12:16 PM, CynicalScouter said:

For example, and just by way of example, the Catholic Church's Virtus program has been the subject of a dozen or more peer reviewed studies from a host of different perspectives (psychological, criminal justice, etc.)

Perhaps Virtus training has evolved again ...   I've taken it a few times as it's evolved ... 

BSA YPT and Catholic Church Virtus  are very different and are complementary.   Multiple times I've said I thought both organizations would be better if the training was combined / merged.  

• Virtus is excellent at raising awareness, emphasizing the seriousness, how to look for signs of abuse, how to report, etc.  I still remember the first time watching the interview with the roller skating teacher jailed serial abuser.  His interview was shocking and eye opening.  
• BSA YPT is more focused on stating expected behavior and communicating the G2SS rules.  I often deal with quality mgmt and process oversight.  Explicit requirements are critical.  G2SS is that standard we follow.  It's not perfect, but it sets expectations.  

Both can easily be criticized.

• Virtus is light on specifics behavior expectations.  Virtus lacks a supporting G2SS like standard reference.  A simple one is I'd like to see Virtus have rules like:  No one-on-one contact.  Or guidance that if you need one-on-one contact, do it in the presence of others.   
• BSA YPT is lacking on the gravitas.  This is real.  It happens and will happen in your area.  You don't want to be the leader / adult who misses it. 

BSA YPT and Catholic Virtus trainings are both excellent.  I find them commentary, but lacking without having taken the other. 

[johnsch322]

18 minutes ago, qwazse said:

it's hard to say if and how anyone will know. These things are most successfully tracked in nations with a centralized health system. And, that is simply not us.

I am sure that 20, 30 ,40 possibly 50 years ago there was some sort of tracking of abuse and that tracking showed low numbers.   The UK has a centralized health system "the NHS" for many decades and there has been abuse.  Society will only know realities when victims come forward and I can attest to the fact that abuse survivors are slow to disclose i.e. USA Gymnastics, Catholic Church and the list could go on and on.  You cannot track in real time and that is the fallacy of tracking abuse and trying to say what what a good job we are doing now.

https://www.boltburdonkemp.co.uk/.../scouts-abuse-map

Edited May 19, 2021 by johnsch322