Jump to content

Former Youth Protection Director on the dangers in Scouts BSA


Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

And guess what? That would probably be determined by BSA to be unsubstantiated or otherwise dismissed.

Of course, we'll never know because BSA refuses to release the data. …

In fact, the event was not dismissed. At least not by BSA. Before it ever reached council, the school principal and the police had deemed it to not be an actionable offense. I only got a call about it from my director of field service because the parent finally reported it to council. Everyone else but BSA had determined to do nothing.
So, no, my experience doesn’t jib with the picture you are trying to paint.

The lack of transparency, however, does not tell me if this is the norm or, as you wish to assert, the exception.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 449
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I don't think anyone said that.  What they said is that we shouldn't just do weekly meetings and eliminate the outdoor program.  Honestly, scouting without an outdoor program is not scouting ... its s

You need to slow down and take a few breaths between reading and typing, you aren't even responding to the right point of outrage here. Eagledad was talking about the Scouting program and the pat

As you to which you allude, it was a stupid decision.  He should have been one of the very last to go before turning off the lights for the final time.

On the train from San Bernardino to Colorado and jambo we slept two to a birth.  One older, one youner or at least smaller.  Otherwise, would not have been room.  I felt sorry for the younger scout with me, as he was really small, and I was 16.  We would go around a curve, and it would roll me into him, then back the other way.  Good thing I was not overly heavy at the time, though compared, probably 40 pounds on him.  After the first night, I put a block of sorts between us.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Armymutt said:

Maybe it's normal now, but I don't remember any sex talk going on in my troop from 90-94.

Gee, not just me.  Whew.  I don't remember any, as a youth, nor as a parent involved for 25 years, attending nearly every troop meeting and campout.

 

Internet the culprit?

 

This opens a whole new world of concern for me as a leader.

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/12/2021 at 8:03 PM, HelpfulTracks said:

The principle of Ex Post Facto is so old and and entrenched I seriously doubt they will allow retroactive SOL changes for criminal law. That is a good thing because of broader implications. 

But I am on board with extending SOL to longer time frames and making punishment for rape and child molestation right behind that for murder. 

There are two issues here: 

 

1.  Ex Post Facto is changing the definition of a law TODAY to make actions prior to TODAY, criminal.  So a year ago, I cut my grass to 2 inches in height-perfectly legal, then.  Now, a year later, cutting my grass to 2" a year ago is a crime!  I had no way to avoid being guilty as I cannot predict what the legislature will make illegal, years after the event.  The Constitutional issue is that citizens are entitled to know at the time they take action whether or not it is criminal.

This is completely different from:

2.  "Years ago, I committed a crime.  It was a crime on the books when I did it.  The statute of limitations was 10 years and I managed to avoid capture and charging past the 10 year date."  Well, this issue is whether the statute of limitations can be changed for crimes already committed.  This is not an Ex Post Facto issue.  In my state, "no one has a vested interest in statutes of limitation for civil matters."  I know little of criminal law, and the answer could be different for all the several states.

 

Just to help clarify...

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, yknot said:

I reached that point earlier than this, maybe a year ago, but found Johnson's comments validating about some of the deep concerns I have developed over the years about National and how it runs the program. In my estimation it has become a self affirming, self congratulatory out of touch cult rather than a functional, modern day nonprofit youth organization.

I hit that point 25 years ago.  Cult.  Yep.  "Toxic culture."  The operation will not change until all the senior leadership is trashed.

They MUST go.

 

Another poster waxed eloquent about how he relies heavily on council staff and how they perform wonderfully.

I do not doubt his experiences.

In my council, we only need the camp Ranger and a full-time Assistant camp Ranger, and someone in the Scout office to handle recharters.

The rest are worthless to my Unit.

Only in the last 10 years did lower level Council folks asked me to re-engage.  I did at functional levels where something is ACCOMPLISHED, not at Board levels where everyone gets mediocre meal four times a year for $1,000.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, SiouxRanger said:

Jaded, or educated?…

No, “jaded” is the correct word.

What we need to desperately know is relative risk. In other words, it’s not enough to know what are the odds of an insult (and consequently, injury) from a given activity. But we need to know — especially when it comes to securing the safety of our youth — if that is more or less dangerous than any other activity.

For example, removal of scout camps will certainly put more youth and adults at increased risk of auto accidents (and concomitant  injury/death). What we don’t know, however, is if substituting that activity for drives to soccer games and sports camp now has lower risks.

So, we build up our risk model based on our experience. Do we see our COR checking references? Are only registered (and therefore, in PA, vetted) adults camping with our youth? Are suspicions dealt with promptly?  Are other groups that youth are involved in more lax? 

You were blessed with fellow scouts who weren’t sex-obsessed. I wasn’t. But since that was also the norm in sports, band, and youth group in my time, I put up with it. Fortunately my SPL and SM would not and things got better as some scouts left and new ones moved up.

I was pleasantly surprised that my sons’ troops and my daughter’s crew tended to be free of that. But, I noticed certain social media patterns that I would nip in the bud by talking to parents.  (Or, if either of my kids were pushing boundaries, I would call him/her on it.)

Given that all of that was beyond the reach of any professional staff, I never trusted National to help me much in keeping my youth safe. So, yes, I look askance at rhetoric promising to make things better by bludgeoning BSA into some “new, improved” scouting model. I’d be happy if they succeed on that point. But they haven’t promised to measure success in any rigorous, scientific, way that includes controlled comparison groups.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

80% non CS

 

Do you have a source for that estimate?  That 80% of the IVF names are NOT CSA seems to imply that the 80% are what? Victims of political repression? Or what else?

 

The next question is if BSA has two IVF lists, those based on CSA, and "Other" (political, troublesome, ???)

 

Have the non-CSA IVF files been released through the Oregon case?

 

Or are they still hidden?

 

Thanks.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Armymutt said:

Maybe it's normal now, but I don't remember any sex talk going on in my troop from 90-94.  There literally was no discussion of girls when Scouting was going on.  Seems really strange to me that this occurs now.  Even when we met international units that had girls, we just did our own thing.  Scouting was an escape from girls.  Our parents didn't "open the hanger doors" at dining outs, and we didn't talk about girls.

I agree. My experience is that older scouts most of the time feel camping is relief from the stress of romantic relationships.. It's more often the younger scouts who have these discussions of curiosity and discovery. My wife had the same experience with younger girls. I belief the discussions are innocent and normal. But, they are alerting to parents, of which most leaders are. Anyone ever wonder how scouts think that tents are sound proof.

Not that older scouts don't have the discussions. Even though older scouts have admitted to me personally of the relief of not thinking about girls, I have heard those discussions from them. But, they are less explicit about sex and more about comparing girls to other girls. Again, innocent and normal.

But, to this discussion. parents take these things to the extreme like reporting the actions as harmful and predatory. That seems almost unbelievable, but parents will use whatever it takes to protect their kids. We had several parents over the years threaten litigation just to get their way in lesser situations.  That was 25 years ago. I can't even imagine what the atmosphere is like today with gay and transgender's rights. Add girls in the mix. It's not so much about sex, I think youth today feel they have more power to get their way. In the scouting program, "getting your way" conflicts with the learning that comes from the humility of making a bad decision. To be mentored requires a willingness to change.

Then you read here of the idealistic dream of Zero Tolerance from adults who have never had to deal with parents that insist their kids are being abused from the other kids who talk of sex, curse and are of a different religion. I can't even imagine being a Scoutmaster today. It's not the scouts that scare me, it's their parents.

Barry

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

There are two issues here: 

 

1.  Ex Post Facto is changing the definition of a law TODAY to make actions prior to TODAY, criminal.  So a year ago, I cut my grass to 2 inches in height-perfectly legal, then.  Now, a year later, cutting my grass to 2" a year ago is a crime!  I had no way to avoid being guilty as I cannot predict what the legislature will make illegal, years after the event.  The Constitutional issue is that citizens are entitled to know at the time they take action whether or not it is criminal.

This is completely different from:

2.  "Years ago, I committed a crime.  It was a crime on the books when I did it.  The statute of limitations was 10 years and I managed to avoid capture and charging past the 10 year date."  Well, this issue is whether the statute of limitations can be changed for crimes already committed.  This is not an Ex Post Facto issue.  In my state, "no one has a vested interest in statutes of limitation for civil matters."  I know little of criminal law, and the answer could be different for all the several states.

 

Just to help clarify...

All true. But Ex Post Facto was what SCOTUS used (in part) to strike down retro extensions of SOL for criminals statutes in 2003 for 1993 California law 

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, HelpfulTracks said:

All true. But Ex Post Facto was what SCOTUS used (in part) to strike down retro extensions of SOL for criminals statutes in 2003 for 1993 California law

SCOTUS:   An enigma wrapped in a paradox, encased in concrete....Allen, Churchill, Alfred E. Neuman, Maynard G. Krebs, Bugs Bunny? (I get my mentors so confused.)

I was just trying to distinguish the different concepts for folks.

After the decision in Korematsu vs. United States, who can trust SCOTUS to follow the Constitution?

Edited by SiouxRanger
better word.
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

Another poster waxed eloquent about how he relies heavily on council staff and how they perform wonderfully.

I do not doubt his experiences.

In my council, we only need the camp Ranger and a full-time Assistant camp Ranger, and someone in the Scout office to handle recharters.

The rest are worthless to my Unit.

Only in the last 10 years did lower level Council folks asked me to re-engage.  I did at functional levels where something is ACCOMPLISHED, not at Board levels where everyone gets mediocre meal four times a year for $1,000.

That would be me. And yes, I do not want to have to do the many functional jobs I have had over the years without them. They have saved me many hours a month when it comes to working as a Commissioner, Training Chair and training staff, contingent leader, OA adviser, etc. 

Nor would I want to try to deal with the recruiting elements. The DE's have a hard enough time coordinating to get into schools to recruit. I know some of the schools around here would not be willing to allow multiple volunteers to come in and recruit, especially several different volunteers on several different nights. 

Not to mention the fundraising they do that pays for the other staff I relay on like the rangers, registrars, program people, communications and printing. As well as not having to pay significantly more for Summer camp, or having scholarships for youth to attend Summer Camp, Jambos and high adventure. 

I envy those councils who do not need their DE's, I would truly like to know how y'all manage to coordinate volunteers to do all those things the DE's do. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

80% non CS

Do you have a source for that estimate?  That 80% of the IVF names are NOT CSA seems to imply that the 80% are what? Victims of political repression? Or what else?

The next question is if BSA has two IVF lists, those based on CSA, and "Other" (political, troublesome, ???)

Have the non-CSA IVF files been released through the Oregon case?

Or are they still hidden?

Thanks.

 

 

 

 

 

Without having quoted the previous post, I am not sure who you are referencing, But I did estimate the 80%.

I got that number from several places. Initially when the IVF files were made public by the press this list contained more than CSA. The one originally saw (I think it was the LA Times, but I could be wrong) was much broader than the one I have found recently (it is in the LA Times).. Looks like they cleaned with file up to only include CSA as well as adding some additional PDF elements for the  CSA case they list. It makes sense they would clean it up as the point of the article was CSA and the entire file dump made it more time consuming to get through all the other issues to find CSA cases.

That also is in sync with my personal experience having to deal with some cases. And my personal experience has been validated by others, both volunteer and professionals.

The "other" offenses cover a broad range of issues. They range from internal BSA issues like lying or omitting information on BSA applications, repeated or flagrant violations of YP or GSS that endangers scouts. And by YP in this case I mean violations short of being accused of CSA,  like repeatedly ignoring one-on-one restrictions. It would also include things like misconduct, frequent or flagrant use of foul language or obscene gestures, being degrading towards scouts or adults, racist acts or language etc.

External issues would include things like felonies, assault outside of Scouting, white collar crimes, fraud (even short of criminal prosecution), threats made.

The IVF is not about CSA alone, and never has been (to my knowledge). It captures anything that would get a scout or scouter declared ineligible to participate.

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, HelpfulTracks said:

The IVF is not about CSA alone, and never has been (to my knowledge). It captures anything that would get a scout or scouter declared ineligible to participate.

Copied From @CynicalScouter Post

I posted about this in June. There is still some confusion.

The official name was the Ineligible Volunteer Files (IVF).

A person could be added to the IVF for a variety of reasons, https://documents.latimes.com/boy-scouts-paper-trail-of-abuse-documents/

There were six categories

  1. Perversion
  2. Morals
  3. Financial
  4. Leadership
  5. Theft
  6. Criminal

Clearly for purposes of the sexual abuse lawsuit(s) going back into the 1990s, some of these were more relevant than others. The "Perversion" files, while the biggest subset, were not the ONLY subset, however people mislabel ALL the IVF files as the "perversion" files.

Edited August 11 by CynicalScouter

Edited by johnsch322
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

Clearly for purposes of the sexual abuse lawsuit(s) going back into the 1990s, some of these were more relevant than others. The "Perversion" files, while the biggest subset, were not the ONLY subset, however people mislabel ALL the IVF files as the "perversion" files.

True. Also, the The "Perversion" files was not used by BSA, at least not officially, and I doubt it was condoned even casually, since it covers a broad range of violations. I am not sure if that category naming list previously was used or if that is a breakdown of violation types that was added by external sources. But if it is BSA categories, it is obviously how the name Perversion Files became the public nomenclature. 

Given the list of violations it covers, you can easily see how CSA was about one on five violations in the IVF (again an educated estimate).

Edited by HelpfulTracks
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
×
×
  • Create New...