Jump to content

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, DJ72 said:

From The organization Child USA, a graphical analysis of BSA ABUSE survivors.

 

https://acrobat.adobe.com/link/review?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3A87a05e13-aae7-35d2-ae34-ce95e08bfae2#pageNum=1

Perhaps this should be spun into another thread.  ... or perhaps it shouldn't be debated in the forum. 

@DJ72 ... Thank you for the post. 

Most of the numbers look reasonable. 

  • 94% were based on one-on-one contact.  Makes sense as abuse needs privacy to happen.  I question how it would not be nearly 100%.  
  • 82% were abused by a scout leader.  Makes sense as abuse would not be tied to scouting if not done by a leader. 
  • 35.0% report that somebody else knew  ... I'm sad as I can believe this number because there is knowing and there is suspecting and there is knowing there is possible abuse.  ...  In the past, a main failure mechanism that enabled abuse was the hesitation to accuse someone with a good reputation ... and accuse them of an inconceivable evil act.  ... That hesitation was a main failure mechanism.  .. The 35% makes sense because I could see the past where people were hesitant to report something they did not fully know or understand... and something that for most people is inconceivable. ... I pray people recognize now that they need to raise questions when they see G2SS violations and possible crimes. 

I have questions.

  • 94% were based on one-on-one contact with children, then points out that this is inspite of prohibition on one-on-one contact. ... BSA did not always have the G2SS (Guide To Safe Scouting) requirements for no one-on-one contact.  I think it was added sometime before I started.  not sure when.  late 1990s ??  ... I'd expect old scouters would be hard to change their ways.  ... QUESTION - Has there been a statisical shift seen after G2SS explicitly said no one-on-one contact?  Or is it too soon as it's only been in the last 25 years. 
  • 63.9% stayed in abusers stayed in scouting after scouting was informed. ...  I read the footnote and it acknowledges a small sampling population and questionable methodology.  ... Fine ... I only have knowledge via IVF where those scouters were removed.  My gut feeling is that this number is wildly off.  Perhaps, I'm just hoping.  I don't know.  From what I've seen, those who abuse are gone from scouting.  Those who did not abuse but mishandled or weakly handled the abuse cases may still still be in scouting, but they were not the abusers.  ... QUESTION ... Does this 63.9% sound right? ... 63.9% were still in scouting after scouting was informed?  ... That does not match my understanding.  But then again, I have not seen these exact cases.  I have seen scouters removed and both the leader and their troop were notified that the person was not welcome anymore.  But different circumstances.  

 

Edited by fred8033
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly, the reputation of the main "experts" in this report and organization does not appear to be stellar.  If you review the main author, there are numerous concerns about her methods and obvious bias, in her case towards the Catholic Church first, and now the BSA.  Look it up and make your own decision.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, fred8033 said:

Perhaps this should be spun into another thread.  ... or perhaps it shouldn't be debated in the forum. 

@DJ72 ... Thank you for the post. 

 BSA did not always have the G2SS (Guide To Safe Scouting) requirements for no one-on-one contact.  I think it was added sometime before I started.  not sure when.  late 1990s ??

 

1988 or 1989. I remember the approximate year because we had a physician, who was also registered with BSA with the troop, who would give us free physicals. The year No one-on-one contact came out, the troop committee chairman sat in the physical as well. I remember asking why he was present, and her said the new rule. In my smartaleckness of the time I commented, "Oh yeah we really need to worry about Doc_________________ since he has 11 kids and one on the way."

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would place a VERY big caution on the interpretation and use of this.  Before I go further, let me say I have the highest admiration for ChildUSA and its work.  The issue though is one of external validity or "generalizability" as it is commonly known.  The data came from a questionnaire that was completed by AIS ("Abused in Scouting") clients.   Regardless of how you feel about the methods used to gain those clients, and I'm making no judgement about that, they are a specific group, that chose a specific firm or group of firms, and that raises questions.  For example, at the time of the questionnaire were predominantly Survivors in "open States" coming forward?  If so, is that group representative of all States?  Were Survivors of the worst forms of abuse coming forward more than others?   This is what we call a convenience sampling method.  It's convenient because the researchers had access to it but it is NOT a randomized sample representative in a systematic way of a larger population.  This does NOT mean that the results should be ignored.  Rather, they should be understood for what they are and until data is collected in a manner that is designed to be widely generalizable this "study" shouldn't be used to explain phenomena beyond the participants who completed the questionnaire.

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

To add to @MYCVAStory's disclaimer ... this is not an analysis, but some descriptive statistics. Without going into details, criminology is hard work, and this is not such a work. But to address @fred8033's comment:

12 hours ago, fred8033 said:

... 94% were based on one-on-one contact with children, then points out that this is inspite of prohibition on one-on-one contact. ...

It is true that sometimes abusers act in concert. Determined predators may look for co-conspirators as well as victims. A couple of my friends were abused in such a way by their families.  With that in mind, we don't know how much prohibiting 1-on-1 contact prevents abuse. It's not 100%. We are hoping that it's some number much greater than zero.

Edited by qwazse
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MYCVAStory said:

"generalizability"

Ok. We all have to admit this is a funny word. Experts like to coin stuff when they don't like what else is available to them, Cronbach or no Cronbach. I'm teasing, but use it in a sentence this week and see the reaction you get (unless you work in quantitative analysis, mathematics or the like). 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ThenNow said:

Ok. We all have to admit this is a funny word. Experts like to coin stuff when they don't like what else is available to them, Cronbach or no Cronbach. I'm teasing, but use it in a sentence this week and see the reaction you get (unless you work in quantitative analysis, mathematics or the like). 

Funny?  HAH!  It's music to researchers' ears.  Before Cronbach gets worked up with reliability we can geek out over who the results will apply to!  Enjoy....  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3369519/

🙂

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, MYCVAStory said:

music to researchers' ears

Precisely, and on a frequency the average mortal cannot detect. I’m messin…

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...