Jump to content

Debate over 72 hour rule - spun from bankruptcy thread


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, qwazse said:

First, let’s be clear that “un-registered” does not equate to “without child abuse clearance.”

Outside Pennsylvania and, perhaps soon, California, unregistered generally does mean without child abuse clearance.

 

4 hours ago, qwazse said:

Therefore, until systems are tightened, “registered” will not equal “cleared” for most purposes.

Given what we know has happened within the BSA, we should be moving toward registered meaning cleared. The screening process needs to be far more robust than it is now.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 102
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I'm sure there are plenty of people who don't understand the rules and some places that have decided to implement stricter versions of the rules, but that doesn't change the fact that what you've desc

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.

That's not a loophole, that's the designed purpose of the rule.  Two-Deep leadership is about emergency response, not protecting kids from the adults.  You regularly conflate these even though they se

13 minutes ago, yknot said:

Their rationale was that people who had something to hide would refuse to agree to a background check and self screen anyway so why spend the money.

Before about five years ago (last instance I asked), registrars in several different councils confided that this was the case...

Now, (and I do not know when this changed), Key 3 and a few others can see in my. scouting, Unit Roster, whether background checks have been completed for registered adults...

Edited by InquisitiveScouter
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, T2Eagle said:

Maybe background checks for everyone is a right and necessary idea, but it's not as self evident or without significant costs and unwanted and unexpected consequences as some folks seem to think.

If it costs $50 for each background check, and many need to get done to allow adults to participate (under some possible future set of rules), would it be worthwhile to have spent those tens of thousands of dollars if exactly one predator is identified and prevented from registering? How about if no predator is identified, but the hurdle the background check represents prevents one predator from attempting to register?

My answer is yes, it's worth the time, trouble and cost.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

Should we ensure adults are never alone (adult buddy system)? 

2 hours ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

This^^^

It's a nice dream, but simply isn't feasible in a Scout level program.  My troop has oodles of adult volunteers compared to many troops and even we would find our operations severely curtailed if 2 adults were required to be in pairs at all times.  Particularly at summer camp.  Not to mention the fact that I'm pretty sure I couldn't function for a full week without being able to take a nap or go to bed early occasionally. (which would leave my buddy stuck in their tent too)

2 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

How do you determine this?  Kids don't report issues for possibly decades.  Do you wait until 20 years from now, see that a large number of girls were sexually abused in our program and realize we let a someone in due to the 72 hour rule?  

I  think we need to look at outside experts and they are indicating this is an issue/concern.  I would rather not wait to find out this was an issue and we did nothing.

I would imagine you'd need to go back through existing case files and try and determine retroactively whether having that rule in place would have had an impact.  If you find cases over the last 30 years where some unregistered adult (who would have failed a background check) abused scouts in the first 71 hours of being on an overnight, you have evidence that the rule needs to be changed.

Edited by elitts
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, elitts said:

Not to mention the fact that I'm pretty sure I couldn't function for a full week without being able to take a nap or go to bed early occasionally. (which would leave my buddy stuck in their tent too)

We actually already don't allow single adults at our campsite.  If you are at our campsite, you need a 2nd adult present.  We identified that years ago as a potential risk (many years before I became SM).  We also tell scouts that they need to find a buddy when coming back to camp.

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, elitts said:

It's a nice dream, but simply isn't feasible in a Scout level program.  My troop has oodles of adult volunteers compared to many troops and even we would find our operations severely curtailed if 2 adults were required to be in pairs at all times.  Particularly at summer camp.  Not to mention the fact that I'm pretty sure I couldn't function for a full week without being able to take a nap or go to bed early occasionally. (which would leave my buddy stuck in their tent too)

 

What you see as a dream is the only way we attend camp. A lot of units somehow don't follow the two adult rule at summer camp, I think because it is not expressly ordered by BSA, which is to my mind a problem. Perhaps it's no coincidence that many of the abuse cases seem to be linked to summer camps. 

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

What you see as a dream is the only way we attend camp. A lot of units somehow don't follow the two adult rule at summer camp, I think because it is not expressly ordered by BSA, which is to my mind a problem. Perhaps it's no coincidence that many of the abuse cases seem to be linked to summer camps. 

I beleive @elitts is refering to adults using the buddy system at summer camp, not the issue of having 2 adults in camp. Since the 72 hours rule has been in place, I know of NO camp that has violated it. And prior to that, when 2 adults needed to be at camp one being registered and over 21, I know of only 1 camp that allowed a troop to attend with only 1 adult.  Some emegency happened to the second adult a few days before they arrived, and teh camp assigned an adult Staffer to be the 2nd Scouter. He stayed with them in their campsite, ate with them with meals, and was essentially an ASM to them that week.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

I beleive @elitts is refering to adults using the buddy system at summer camp, not the issue of having 2 adults in camp. Since the 72 hours rule has been in place, I know of NO camp that has violated it. And prior to that, when 2 adults needed to be at camp one being registered and over 21, I know of only 1 camp that allowed a troop to attend with only 1 adult.  Some emegency happened to the second adult a few days before they arrived, and teh camp assigned an adult Staffer to be the 2nd Scouter. He stayed with them in their campsite, ate with them with meals, and was essentially an ASM to them that week.

I'm talking about leaving only one adult in the camp site with one bunch of scouts while the other adult goes off for a hike or something with a different bunch. That kind of thing. That's been discussed on this forum and people do report doing that.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Gotcha. Thst is where the no one on one rule kicks in.

Correct.  However, at summer camp, if you are an adult alone, no one on one happens randomly ... many times it is unavoidable.  Why?  Because of summer camp programing, it is difficult to ensure every kid has a buddy with them 100% of the time.  That can then be used by pedos as an excuse (hey, I was just by myself sleeping at camp and a scout came into camp).

The point is the only way to ensure no one on one at summer camp is to have adult buddies.  I know our Troop (and it sounds like others) already do this at the campsite (no adult at the campsite by themselves).  It sounds like yknot's Troop does this across camp and I can see why.  We are looking into it for our Troop, but haven't decided yet.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, PeterHopkins said:

… How about if no predator is identified, but the hurdle the background check represents prevents one predator from attempting to register?

My answer is yes, it's worth the time, trouble and cost.

How about if no predator is screened, but a number of parents — not trusting their kids to summer camp with the only two registered leaders available from their unit — do not attend, but rather form their own club but instead camp on a relative’s cabin in Canada (which would not require any RCMP clearance), who hosts them and begins grooming an erstwhile scout or two?

My answer is don’t broker in hypotheticals without a devil’s advocate.

I don’t believe BSA has looked at all of the CSA data when making the 72 hour rule. I bet there aren’t a lot of instances of abuse by some other kid’s non-registered parent on weekend campouts. But, I bet there are a large number of injury suits by parents who weren’t at camp when an incident happened. Furthermore, I’m more than just guessing that a lot of 71-hour-or-less cub resident camps had something to say in the matter.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

The point is the only way to ensure no one on one at summer camp is to have adult buddies.  I know our Troop (and it sounds like others) already do this at the campsite (no adult at the campsite by themselves).  It sounds like yknot's Troop does this across camp and I can see why.  We are looking into it for our Troop, but haven't decided yet.

If you have enough trusted adults to buddy up all the time, do it. It’s not just about YPT. Stupid happens fast, and adults are not exempt from my axiom. A buddy helps mitigate the impact of accidents. Plus, it’s a great way to get to know your fellow adults.

On the other hand, put little faith in that system. Two adults could conspire to put live-feed cameras in a shower house … or do worse. I’d rather one adult of integrity in his/her hammock keeping one eye on some scouts than have two sketchy adults with evil designs having time to scheme.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

We actually already don't allow single adults at our campsite.  If you are at our campsite, you need a 2nd adult present.  We identified that years ago as a potential risk (many years before I became SM).  We also tell scouts that they need to find a buddy when coming back to camp.

Do you allow a single adult to go anywhere with groups of scouts?  Or is camp your concern because there are private places (tents) where someone could attempt to get a scout alone?  A troop requiring 2 adults in camp is a more achievable goal than requiring adults always be paired for everything.  We always have 4 adults at summer camp, and try desperately to have 6, but sometimes 4 is the best we can do for some days; and only being able to accomplish 2 things at once because the adults need to remain paired would be a problem.

I know the way we (or I at least) handle a single scout straggling into camp is by either removing myself if I'm not doing anything useful, or simply telling them to "go over there and stay there" until other folks return.  A nutcase could still argue I was grooming a scout from 70 feet away by sharpening tomahawks while the scout tried to get a bottle of water to land bottom down, but that's a risk I'm willing to take.

18 hours ago, yknot said:

What you see as a dream is the only way we attend camp. A lot of units somehow don't follow the two adult rule at summer camp, I think because it is not expressly ordered by BSA, which is to my mind a problem. Perhaps it's no coincidence that many of the abuse cases seem to be linked to summer camps. 

You mean Two-Deep Leadership?  I'm not sure how you could not comply with that rule at summer camp given the fact that there are literally dozens of registered adults all over the place.  Even if you are a single scoutmaster with a troop, by showing up to summer camp you would automatically be in compliance with the Two-Deep requirement.  After all, "Summer Camp" is the activity, not "my campsite".

Edited by elitts
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, elitts said:

Do you allow a single adult to go anywhere with groups of scouts?  Or is camp your concern because there are private places (tents) where someone could attempt to get a scout alone?  A troop requiring 2 adults in camp is a more achievable goal than requiring adults always be paired for everything.  We always have 4 adults at summer camp, and try desperately to have 6, but sometimes 4 is the best we can do for some days; and only being able to accomplish 2 things at once because the adults need to remain paired would be a problem.

I think that is why we have only, so far, limited our adult buddy rule to in camp.  It is difficult to manage throughout camp and it seems like it is definitely lower risk out of the campsite.

Depending on the year, we typically have at least 6 adults and sometimes as many as 8-10 at camp.  I prefer 6 as I feel 8-10 are too many and I spend too much time dealing with the adults.  I think with 6 it could work, less it would be difficult to have adult buddies.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, elitts said:

Do you allow a single adult to go anywhere with groups of scouts?  Or is camp your concern because there are private places (tents) where someone could attempt to get a scout alone?  A troop requiring 2 adults in camp is a more achievable goal than requiring adults always be paired for everything.  We always have 4 adults at summer camp, and try desperately to have 6, but sometimes 4 is the best we can do for some days; and only being able to accomplish 2 things at once because the adults need to remain paired would be a problem.

I know the way we (or I at least) handle a single scout straggling into camp is by either removing myself if I'm not doing anything useful, or simply telling them to "go over there and stay there" until other folks return.  A nutcase could still argue I was grooming a scout from 70 feet away by sharpening tomahawks while the scout tried to get a bottle of water to land bottom down, but that's a risk I'm willing to take.

You mean Two-Deep Leadership?  I'm not sure how you could not comply with that rule at summer camp given the fact that there are literally dozens of registered adults all over the place.  Even if you are a single scoutmaster with a troop, by showing up to summer camp you would automatically be in compliance with the Two-Deep requirement.  After all, "Summer Camp" is the activity, not "my campsite".

That's the loophole that people use. I think some common sense has to apply when you have an individual adult walking over to the health office or some other such task. On the other hand, people use that loophole to have only one adult in the camp site or to go off on a hike or take a bunch of kids to a swimming hole, etc., The rationale will be that there are "dozens" of registered adults present and the entire camp facility is the activity. The issue with the 72 hour rule is that it can inadvertently result in an unregistered adult being that sole individual supervising the camp site. I think if you are engaged in any kid related task, you need two adults. Not glimpsed walking through the trees or somewhere in the vicinity but where the kids and other adult are. Most abuse happens at either summer camp or on camp outs so if you want to apply stringent YPT where it will do the most good, do it there. I am frequently incredulous at the people who will leap out of an open door troop meeting if they find themselves 50 feet away but alone with a scout or two in a room for 30 seconds, but will be belligerent about taking a group of scouts for a day hike at summer camp because "camp is the activity". If YPT is supposed to be based on actual safety measures, the logic in those situations does not track. Then we are simply doing YPT for show, not effect, if it's somehow OK to be hiking alone with kids at summer camp.  IMO.

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...