Jump to content

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

I'm curious, what controls do you think would make youth safer? Do you have experience with the program as an adult? I was involved with several youth program as a youth and adult raising kids, and none of those other program came close to the youth protection policies of the BSA. Since you mention stricter controls would make youth safer, I'm curious of the controls.

Barry

Just now, johnsch322 said:

How about no non registered adults on any overnight campout? As the previous poster said how does litigation make it safer for I will ask you if there had been no litigation against youth organizations would it be as safe as an environment now or would we have less controls. I have experience with youth as my daughter was a competitive swimmer for about 8 years. 

Bzzzt!!

Implement that rule and you can no longer maintain "All aspects of the program are open to observation by parents".  Parents who are not register-able for reasons unrelated to child sexual abuse would therefore be unable to observe the program. 

Besides, that whole argument is a strawman.  Have we got a problem with unregistered adults molesting kids on weekend trips? I haven't heard of one, the standard abuse case profile I've seen is that "a trusted official Scouter" is the abuser.  So what problem are you attempting to solve?  Is the problem adults in proximity to scouts on over-nights?  What about other unrelated groups in the immediate area of the campout?  There's bound to be some problem adults in say, a state park campground.  Is the problem unregistered adults interacting with scouts at all?  What do you do about every unregistered adult at the various facilities that scouts visit?

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 108
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Their advocates will have us believe that not all victims of childhood sexual assault are litigants. So, no, by their own argument, we are not blaming survivors, or even a majority of them. If the cur

The words don't support your interpretation. The first sentence is talking about an activity ... singular ... a camp out, a trip, a high adventure ....   Any activity that is 72 hours or more.  T

This has been debated and clarified. It is not a multi activity odometer. It really means something like summer camp. You can leave at hour 71 and come back and have it reset. Yes, you could go on mul

12 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

How about no non registered adults on any overnight campout? 

So you do not want parents going camping with their kids? That's the reason why the 72 hour rule was put into place.

At the Cub Scout level, it is family camping.

Scout, Sea Scout, and Venturing levels,  while not family oriented, as @elitts stated is suppose to be open to parents observation. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

Umm, there was a lot said there, but its confusing. No registered adults overnight got it. I don't understand the litigation. I'm pretty sure the BSA has been involved with many litigation cases. What youth protection controls in competitive swimming do you suggest for the BSA.

Barry

I am sorry I confused you. Glad you understood the overnight part. As far as litigation goes all I am saying is that only when litigation started did organizations get serious about YPT. Even USA swimming has tightened its controls only as a result of litigation. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

I am sorry I confused you. Glad you understood the overnight part. As far as litigation goes all I am saying is that only when litigation started did organizations get serious about YPT. Even USA swimming has tightened its controls only as a result of litigation. 

So, what do you think motivated the BSA to create their youth protection policies they have now. What part of it doesn't appear serious?. 

Barry

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

So, what do you think motivated the BSA to create their youth protection policies they have now. What part of it doesn't appear serious?. 

Barry

BSA only started to get serious about youth protection policies when they started to get sued and lose. I didn’t say it wasn’t serious now but every program has room for improvement. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

BSA only started to get serious about youth protection policies when they started to get sued and lose. I didn’t say it wasn’t serious now but every program has room for improvement. 

I don't know. We've had several discussions of improvements on this forum and nothing serious seems to ever materialize. And honestly, saying something can be improved without any experience or knowledge of it isn't firm ground to stand on. A better pragmatic discussion would be to learn how scouts got into situation where they were abused and then find solutions. Does registering every parent fix the problem? Fix any problem?

Barry

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

So you do not want parents going camping with their kids? That's the reason why the 72 hour rule was put into place.

At the Cub Scout level, it is family camping.

Scout, Sea Scout, and Venturing levels,  while not family oriented, as @elitts stated is suppose to be open to parents observation. 

I don't think the 72 hour rule is restricted to parents or guardians. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

BSA only started to get serious about youth protection policies when they started to get sued and lose. I didn’t say it wasn’t serious now but every program has room for improvement. 

Which was when?      I left the program in the early 80's and do not remember if scouting had any policies at that time.  When I returned to the program in 2001 youth protection was a big issue and the scouting program has placed it on top of the list in the time I have been back in the program.  Other might know the true timeline but scouting has put youth protection since sometime in the late 80's or early 90's.

Yes every program can make improvements in youth protection but what could scouting have done different than has been done in the last 30-40 years.

The scouting programs youth protection issue is not the reason our troop is loosing our CO.  The reason we a loosing our CO is the overall liability that will fall on the CO. 

Edited by ValleyBoy
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

I don't think the 72 hour rule is restricted to parents or guardians. 

The 72 hour rule applies to any and all persons over the age of 18 who want to camp with a unit.  

I can see the application with Cubs, as other than the occasional Webelos Resident Camp, they are typically on one or two nights, so no need for that rule to hinder anyone there.  Also, Cubs usually are required to have a parent/guardian when the camp.

Where the 72 hour rule needs to be reinforced, and IMO made stricter, is at the troop level.  I am all for any parent who wishes to accompany a troop camping to be welcome.  However, I would really like to see the be required to register, take YPT, and be background checked.  Any parent who just wants to observe what their child does on some of these campouts who does not want to register is welcome to come out and observe to their hearts content during the day. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

I don't know. We've had several discussions of improvements on this forum and nothing serious seems to ever materialize. And honestly, saying something can be improved without any experience or knowledge of it isn't firm ground to stand on. A better pragmatic discussion would be to learn how scouts got into situation where they were abused and then find solutions. Does registering every parent fix the problem? Fix any problem?

Barry

This is a good point.  I think a good start is to look at the 3000 claims in bankruptcy post the year 2000.  Someone should be reviewing those, how did they occur.  Who did the abuse, how did they get registered?  Did the unit, CO, camp follow BSA policy, etc.  

Then ... could there be changes to rules/policies that would have prevented the abuse?  Finally, would those rule/policy changes destroy the program (for example, we could require every kid to have 2 adult guardians/parents present but that would clearly destroy the program).

I tend to agree, the ideas we have generated here have not involved much if any changes at the unit level.  More along the lines of reporting and more openness at the national BSA level.  Perhaps the biggest question is COs and absent CORs.  But to be fair, it is not clear that any of the proposed changes in this forum would have actually prevented abuse in today's scout program.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, MikeS72 said:

The 72 hour rule applies to any and all persons over the age of 18 who want to camp with a unit.  

I can see the application with Cubs, as other than the occasional Webelos Resident Camp, they are typically on one or two nights, so no need for that rule to hinder anyone there.  Also, Cubs usually are required to have a parent/guardian when the camp.

Where the 72 hour rule needs to be reinforced, and IMO made stricter, is at the troop level.  I am all for any parent who wishes to accompany a troop camping to be welcome.  However, I would really like to see the be required to register, take YPT, and be background checked.  Any parent who just wants to observe what their child does on some of these campouts who does not want to register is welcome to come out and observe to their hearts content during the day. 

I have made this statement before. While living in Canada my daughter was in Girl Scouts. In order for my wife to accompany her on an overnight she had to have a background check done by the RCMP and we had to pay for it. We did and did not complain. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On youth protection, maybe start with what the former BSA director of youth protection Michael Johnson had to say on the subject:

1) Recognize that scouting is a high risk perhaps the highest risk youth activity as far as youth protection and other aspects. 

2) Recognize that a significant percentage of current abuse cases are youth on youth. Older youth supervision of younger youth is a problem. 

3) Remove NDAs that prevent other youth protection experts who have contracted with the BSA from speaking out.

4) The CO structure is dysfunctional as far as supervision of units and scouts. Some COs still allow known perpetrators to have access to youth.

5) Release files that have names of perpetrators who have not yet been reported by BSA.  

6) BSA's focus is more on protecting the brand and protecting the COs that are at the core of its business model and not on youth protection. 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

We talk a lot about youth protection from the adult side and how it isn't as good as it could be, but I think on the youth side, it's pretty good.  I've watched the Lion and Tiger version so far, and the videos do a good job of sensitizing kids to what is bad.  Just like the rest of Scouting, it's going to take parental involvement in reinforcing the idea that it is ok to tell on an adult for doing something bad or that makes a kid uncomfortable.  We review the difference between secrets and surprises, and do our best to use the terms appropriately.  Between this and the fact that my kids are the biggest narcs, I feel pretty safe with them in Scouting.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, johnsch322 said:

I have made this statement before. While living in Canada my daughter was in Girl Scouts. In order for my wife to accompany her on an overnight she had to have a background check done by the RCMP and we had to pay for it. We did and did not complain. 

However, were you going to a friend’s farm or relative’s camp (the more frequent scenario facing most scouts) that check would not be required. Were you to go there for more than three days, BSA would require a registration and (presumably) background check while the friend or relative may not. So depending on the specific activity, Canada will come off more or less strict than BSA’s 72 hour policy.

When taking a crew to Seabase Bahamas, I needed a notarized statement from the parent of everyone under 18. This was more to address human trafficking than CSA. The parents being registered was a big help to me on that front. That was for reasons other than screening for CSArs. The fact that we all knew how to hold each other accountable was very helpful.

PA’s mandatory reporter training has been helpful in coordinating volunteers across multiple organizations.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, yknot said:

On youth protection, maybe start with what the former BSA director of youth protection Michael Johnson had to say on the subject:

1) Recognize that scouting is a high risk perhaps the highest risk youth activity as far as youth protection and other aspects. 

2) Recognize that a significant percentage of current abuse cases are youth on youth. Older youth supervision of younger youth is a problem. 

3) Remove NDAs that prevent other youth protection experts who have contracted with the BSA from speaking out.

4) The CO structure is dysfunctional as far as supervision of units and scouts. Some COs still allow known perpetrators to have access to youth.

5) Release files that have names of perpetrators who have not yet been reported by BSA.  

6) BSA's focus is more on protecting the brand and protecting the COs that are at the core of its business model and not on youth protection. 

 

Nah.  He gets basically zero credibility in my book.  A fired/laid off person making lots of accusations and claims without any support or verifiable explanation isn't a reputable source.  In particular, the claim that someone in the BSA or COs is deliberately letting known abusers continue to have access to kids seems wildly unlikely.  Has it ever happened?  I mean, clearly we already know the Catholic Church did this and they sponsored some troops, so of course it did.  But if he was truly the beleaguered champion of youth that he's trying to portray, I'd have expected him to have either dealt with this already or have resigned in protest right before he forwarded all the data concerning it to the FBI.

Plus, several of his statements make me wonder if he ever actually understood the point of Scouting.  The only two things he mentioned that could be the basis of actual rule or policy changes to reduce risk to scouts were:

  • Older supervision of younger scouts is a problem;
  • Overnight trips may represent an unreasonable risk to scouts.

That would be like the Safety Director for the NCAA opining that "sports involving direct contact between players is unreasonably risky".

  • Upvote 1
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...