Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
strider

Youth Protection Quiz II

Recommended Posts

I have to admit when I'm wrong, and I was wrong that two-deep is required for all activities, when in fact the standard is for outings.

 

"Two-deep leadership is required on all outings. Two registered adult leaders or one registered leader and a parent of a participant, or other adult, one of whom must be 21 years of age or older, are required on all trips and outings. The chartered organization is responsible for ensuring that sufficient leadership is provided for all Scouting activities. There are a few instances, such as patrol activities, when the presence of adult leaders is not required and adult leadership may be limited to training and guidance of the patrol leadership. With the proper training, guidance, and approval by the troop leaders, the patrol can conduct day hikes and service projects. Appropriate adult leadership must be present for all overnight Scouting activities; coed overnight activitieseven those including parent and childrequire male and female adult leaders, both of whom must be 21 years of age or older, and one of whom must be a registered member of the BSA. The chartered organization is responsible for ensuring that sufficient leadership is provided for all activities."

 

However, if I were a COR, I would probably require two-deep for all Scouting activities.

 

Why would I do that? I refer to scenario three of the old "A Time to Tell"

 

A culture of secrecy can create an opportunity for abuse of many kids at one time. That culture of secrecy is most easily maintained with only one adult.

 

The two-deep leadership for only outings combined with a no one-on-one is great if the objective is to be able to corroborate accusations. However, if the objective is to prevent abusive situations, enforcing two-deep at all scouting activities is not an unreasonable stretch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of these would indicate a lax attitude; 10 is a disturbing problem.

 

Our CO takes this very seriously and some fairly tough standards with their own version of YP. Over the winter the senior pastor invited the key leader of the troop, pack and two girl scout troops who meet at the church for a meeting. He reviewed the church's YP program and we all discussed how our standards fit. Most all the rules are essentially the same and no changes were made, but I did get the church to pay to install glass panels in the doors to our meeting rooms. :)

 

Point being, in my situation, we would have a meeting between the Scoutmaster, committee chairman, Chartered Org. Rep. and the Senior Pastor. I have absolute confidence the minister would "clarify" the rules and expectations in no uncertain terms. The time frame for compliance would be about as long as it takes to say "your services are no longer needed."

 

If no one in the troop or CO is able to have such a clear, sharp conversations (and I absolutely understand, it's not easy) I would bump it up to the SE. He gets the big bucks for having those conversations. Either way, I think it wise to involve the SE in the process as the folks on the ground see fit. If the SE's input is needed up front, get it. At minimum, I would suggest to the minister that he follow up the meeting with a letter outlining the expectation and send a copy to the SE.

 

Not to jump the other thread on what the SE will do, but I really don't know. He may say, "this guy is outta here" or he may say, "looks like your CO has it covered, let me know if I can help" or something in between. But my feeling is it is critical to get folks like your SE and IH involved in these situation and supportive of your actions.

 

By the way, as everyone seems to agree, #5 is fine. I was going to say #6 could be okay in certain circumstances, but when I re-read it, you're saying the SM has a note which gives him a blanket exception for one-on-one contact with some boys. No. Not even close.

 

Hypothetically, however, if our family is particularly close with the family across the street and my son and I always give the neighbor kid a ride, I don't think I'm precluded from offering the ride if my son isn't present for some reason. A year or two ago we had a thread about someone who would give his nephew a one-on-one ride to Scouts when his own son was sick. That's nuts. YP rules don't apply outside Scouting and parents and families have ultimate say over what their son does. Personally, a parent, I see a difference between someone with whom I've had a long-time relationship who happens to be a Scout leader vs. someone with whom my only relationship is through Scouting. I'll trust my son to go to Scouts or anywhere else with my long-time friends, but when the new ASM who just moved to the neighborhood offers rides to individual Scouts I will be very leary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of these would indicate a lax attitude; 10 is a disturbing problem.

 

Our CO takes this very seriously and some fairly tough standards with their own version of YP. Over the winter the senior pastor invited the key leader of the troop, pack and two girl scout troops who meet at the church for a meeting. He reviewed the church's YP program and we all discussed how our standards fit. Most all the rules are essentially the same and no changes were made, but I did get the church to pay to install glass panels in the doors to our meeting rooms. :)

 

Point being, in my situation, we would have a meeting between the Scoutmaster, committee chairman, Chartered Org. Rep. and the Senior Pastor. I have absolute confidence the minister would "clarify" the rules and expectations in no uncertain terms. The time frame for compliance would be about as long as it takes to say "your services are no longer needed."

 

If no one in the troop or CO is able to have such a clear, sharp conversations (and I absolutely understand, it's not easy) I would bump it up to the SE. He gets the big bucks for having those conversations. Either way, I think it wise to involve the SE in the process as the folks on the ground see fit. If the SE's input is needed up front, get it. At minimum, I would suggest to the minister that he follow up the meeting with a letter outlining the expectation and send a copy to the SE.

 

Not to jump the other thread on what the SE will do, but I really don't know. He may say, "this guy is outta here" or he may say, "looks like your CO has it covered, let me know if I can help" or something in between. But my feeling is it is critical to get folks like your SE and IH involved in these situation and supportive of your actions.

 

By the way, as everyone seems to agree, #5 is fine. I was going to say #6 could be okay in certain circumstances, but when I re-read it, you're saying the SM has a note which gives him a blanket exception for one-on-one contact with some boys. No. Not even close.

 

Hypothetically, however, if our family is particularly close with the family across the street and my son and I always give the neighbor kid a ride, I don't think I'm precluded from offering the ride if my son isn't present for some reason. A year or two ago we had a thread about someone who would give his nephew a one-on-one ride to Scouts when his own son was sick. That's nuts. YP rules don't apply outside Scouting and parents and families have ultimate say over what their son does. Personally, a parent, I see a difference between someone with whom I've had a long-time relationship who happens to be a Scout leader vs. someone with whom my only relationship is through Scouting. I'll trust my son to go to Scouts or anywhere else with my long-time friends, but when the new ASM who just moved to the neighborhood offers rides to individual Scouts I will be very leary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Twocubdad,

 

Do you mind if I ask what your CO is? Refreshing to hear of one that takes such an active role.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yah, hmmm...

 

Well, there's stuff that's fine, stuff that's edgy but fine, stuff that's not good practice and stuff that's of real concern.

 

As some others have pointed out, it's important to have more than a true or false view of things. Some stuff is "true" but still edgy, and needs to be paid attention to. Some stuff is technically "false", but either unenforceable or not a big deal in some circumstances.

 

In truth, youth protection is a set of guidelines to protect adults and institutions primarily, though alertness to it can also protect kids. The SM is entirely correct that BSA YP guidelines don't apply outside of scouting. If he is a friend of the family, he certainly can with the parents' permission baby sit one-on-one in the evenings, play in the family paintball game, or any number of other things. It's not our prerogative to interfere with a boy's parents' decisions outside of scouting. Nevertheless, depending on the relationship with the family, some things may be imprudent or unwise.

 

So my answers would be somewhat more cautious than most.

 

1) Yes, BSA guidance ends at the end of an outing, whatever that happens to be. If the norm is that parents are responsible for transportation, then a parent can delegate that responsibility as they see fit. One on one with older brother driver, one on one with uncle Fred, one on one with Mr. Twocubdad who is the normal carpool driver but whose kid is sick at home so he's one-on-one for the last half mile for the last kid. Not a big deal. But takin' a lad to the SM's home to unload... too edgy for my taste under many circumstances. Some COs have stricter outside-of-program ethics guidelines, and may object on that basis.

 

2) There's no problem with drivin' unrelated youth to events, just no one-on-one. Insurance has nuthin' to do with the uniform. I'd suggest that if the event starts at a particular place and parents are responsible for transportation to that place, then BSA insurance does not come into play for the driving portion, and how each parent manages driving or carpooling is up to them. See above.

 

3) Da problem here again is one-on-one. I'd have no problem with arriving early with multiple youth. That happens.

 

4) Creepy! I think if you're doin' scout stuff, it is a scouting event. Again, a bit depends on da relationship with the family, though. If a parent drops their kid off at a long-time family friend's while she goes shopping, and the two work on scout stuff while he's baby-sitting, whatever. Not a big deal. Same with acco's not catchin' it one time.

 

5) No problem, but a bit edgy. Worth keepin' an eye on.

 

6) Well, a parent does have authority over their kids and can delegate that to other adults. What do we think Permission Slips for trips are other than a note from the parents that gives scouters authority and responsibility that another adult would not have? However, a parent can't give an adult the authority to override the program's rules, eh? Those belong to the program, not to the parent. So no, this is a misunderstanding of the source of the rule.

 

7) Well, not technically, but occasionally necessary. Sometimes yeh just have to get a lad away from folks. A boy who needs space to cry out of sight because his mom's dyin' of cancer or whatnot. But those things are rare, and yeh can usually finesse 'em.

 

8) Well, no, but to be fair the 18-21 year old thing in OA is a bit of a mess.

 

9) No.

 

10) Well, maybe. Again, thinkin' of the odd exception like the cancer scenario, where dad is aware and available. Sometimes yeh just do what yeh need to do for a kid in need, especially with the parent's permission.

 

Now, it's fine to acknowledge that in some cases YP doesn't technically apply, or that in others it's sometimes necessary to do somethin' different to take care of a kid. Those are the exceptions that prove the rule.

 

But if yeh have personally witnessed all of this stuff goin' on, and goin' on frequently, and goin' on not in exceptional cases but in the ordinary course of events, and it's bein' done by a fellow who really wanted to get into the SM position, hmmm... Let me say this explicitly and in bold. What you are describing should scare the living daylights out of you, particularly if the man seems to have "favorites" or types of boys he goes one-on-one with. So this old furry Beavah, who always tries to take the balanced approach and has listed all of the various caveats and exceptions above, is tellin' yeh that taken as a whole, you may very well have a serious problem. Not a gentle counseling on better approaches problem, an investigate, talk to the boys involved, and possibly remove-the-man-from-scouting problem.

 

Alternately, if yeh have witnessed none of it, are omitting important pieces or this is some little coffee clatch rumor mill thing goin' on among ex-Scoutmasters, then yeh still have a serious problem. If you and a few others are defaming this man's character through a bunch of gossip and innuendo, then you are the folks who need to be removed from scouting, and someone in the troop should encourage the Scoutmaster to contact an attorney to hit yeh with a very large defamation lawsuit.

 

From afar, I can't begin to tell the difference.

 

So my general advice is that yeh tell the COR and CC just the facts that you personally have observed, and let 'em make their own decisions. Otherwise just stay mildly alert and observant. And stop answering parent emails. Tell the parents yeh aren't interested, and that they need to speak with the SM or CC. Anything else doesn't match with our 12-point Law.

 

Beavah

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) BSA CYA - One can look at all the minutia of the guidelines and for the most part it doesn't matter. The BSA has put out these guidelines for two very important reasons, the first being litigation and secondly the bad press that will result in an incident. Even if the scout leader is NOT at a scout event, it will be drawn up in the press! Not good for the PR of BSA and the possible resulting lawsuit if it IS at a BSA event. Either way the adult leader is screwed by any and all allocations. It might cost the BSA's insurance a bit of money, but it's going to cost you your reputation for life.

 

2. Self CYA - I have been around this issue for 40 years and stayed away from any and all impropriety whether it be BSA or not. As a counselor, leave the door open, have a witness near by. As a church youth leader of co-ed groups, be especially careful. BSA is probably the easiest to deal with because of the general quality of the participants, but even then keep a watchful eye. When I tutored in a confined institution for problem youth and the only training I got was, "Don't turn your back on anyone. I learned to have my chair always against the wall. Even when you see it coming at least you know when to duck.

 

3. Participants CYA - Are you aware of any abuse by another adult, bullying by peers, etc. etc. Is the participant safe even if they are not with you?

 

So, am I concerned whether the word "shall" or "may" is used in the guidelines. Heck no, in a court of law that issue holds about as much water as a sieve.

 

If one wishes to interpret and find loop-holes in the material, that's all well and good and makes for an excuse when they get into court, but chances are it's not going to make one iota bit of difference. Everyone takes risks and sometimes you get away with it, sometimes you don't. It's just a matter of how much risk you are willing to live with and how much time you are willing involve yourself in the risk.

 

A well-known safety expert in a seminar stated that out of 330 risky behaviors, 300 times you will get away with it. 29 times you will be involved in an injury and 1 time you will be killed. While everyone ooohed and ahhed about that he took out a jar of candy and started passing it around. He stated that 300 pieces were candy, 29 were a strong laxative and one contained cyanide. How many people took candy? NONE. Yet those same people went out and sped up at the yellow light, drove a wee bit over the speed limit, associated with certain people in a risky situation and even went on a Scout event.

 

The guidelines are spelled out not to indicate where the minimum amount of risk is, but a way to moderate away some of the risk. These guidelines are NOT going to keep people from getting into trouble, but they do go a long way to minimize the risk. In the end, the only thing that really enforces them is not the little certificate you get to print out at the end of the training session, or the check mark you get next to your name when you register as YPT trained, but how well you take the knowledge to heart and how much risk you are willing to live with in the long run.

 

Like I said, 40+ years of working with you and I've still been blind-sided along the way by people simply raising the specter of impropriety.

 

Figure out what your risk level is and then you will realize just how ineffective debating the vocabulary of the YPT guidelines really is.

 

Stosh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HOLY GUACAMOLE!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!!!!!!

 

You do NOT do the things that were in the quiz EVER YP not only covers the youth, but yourself.

 

If a 'He said/She Said" situation comes into play, BSA will takes the youth side every single time. Even if the youth in question is a known liar. I speak from some expereince on this.

 

EDITED: had the whole thing bolded, not the important parts.

 

I had some youth I and a few friends caught after hours at a NOAC once. We tried to bring them back, and they ran off. Long story short when busted by the Lodge Adviser, they started out by saying we gave them permission to stay out late, but eventually all recanted on their own, except one. He was eventually forced to recant.

 

A year later, same youth is out after hours. One leader who had just gotten out of the showers and walking back to camp saw him out, and tried to get him back to camp. The youth accused the leader of inappropriate comments and contact. Leader is gone, youth remained and unfortunately got Eagle. Luckily to my knowledge he never got Vigil, despite being a lodge officer for some time.

 

Now this story is second hand, but considering I was taken into the Scout Shop manager's office and told about it, and given a warning, I'll take it as fact. At another nationally owned scout shop, a long time volunteer turned part-time scout shop employee was accused of "inappropriate contact" with a youth when rolled up the CS neckerchief, placed it around the Cub's neck, put on the slide, and did the "slide to the nose" trick. All this in a scout shop full of people and in front of the mother. I use to do the exact same thing, and was told to stop.

 

You always have 2 folks around, except in emergencies, i.e. life or limb situations.(This message has been edited by Eagle92)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the older shirts, bet you can still due with current CS shirts, you bring the slide up high enough that if you lift the up the bottom of the necker, the slide hits your nose. This really works if you wear the necker the "correct" way, i.e. over a tucked under collar ;).

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" Even if the scout leader is NOT at a scout event, it will be drawn up in the press!"

 

Ain't that the truth! I could be 4 years out of scouting, get drunk, drive a car and wreck and the headlines in the newspaper would rad:

" Boy scout leader gets drunk and crashes!"

 

 

Everybody reading that paper will get an image of a scout leader driving around camp at 80 mph , weaving through boy scouts( who are diving away and runing for their lives) before hitting a tree which causes the vehicle to explode!

 

 

Perception is a bad thing.

 

Just the other day, I was listening to my regular morning show on radio: The T&A ( Tommy & Abbi) Morning show out of Myrtle Beach NC

 

They had a girl in teh studio promoting an upcoming MMA fight event.

 

The girl was of Asian decent.

 

So anyways, one of the things she brought up was that as a MMA fighter, she sometims gets a bruise or two, some cuts and the occasional black eye.

 

She then went on to talk about the looks her and especially her boyfriend/husband ( can't remember which it was ) will get while out in public together when she has a black eye.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

strider

Welcome to the forums.

There are are of course different courses for different horses.

If you find YP scenarios helpful. More power to you.

Long before the BSA made the wise move to put all this stuff on line I was tasked with having to present it.

A lot of times I kinda felt a little bit like Goldie Locks.

While of course I didn't want anyone to ignore all the important and good information and follow the guidelines. I at the same time didn't want to scare the living daylights out of them so that they would be afraid to ever do anything.

Youth Protection needs to be done just right.

What is just right?

While most times, following the good book is for the best and will never lead you astray. There are however times when you will have to think for yourself doing what the situation requires and what is best for the everyone concerned.

I once had the great misfortune to spend a week at the Philmont Conference Center with a female Council Commissioner who wanted to make everything a YP issue. By the end of the the week my feelings toward her could have made it a adult protection issue.

Youth Protection has served us well.It has made us more aware of a lot of situations that can or could be seen as harmful, it has help reduce the cost of Scouting.

I'm not sold on it protecting youth. At best maybe it has made it more difficult for the people who are determined to do harm to our youth.

Protecting our kids from determined perverts is more about training our kids than expecting the perverts to follow a book of guidelines.

We live in strange times, it's important that we do what is needed to protect ourselves, not just from what happens today, but also from what might happen twenty or more years down the road. The last thing I want in my old age when I'm enjoying my glass of Ensure is for some 32 year old to come along and say that Eamonn abused me.

Right now my reputation and good name is such that I very much doubt if anything would stick, but in twenty years time?

Still with a good dose of common sense I don't believe that YP has to be something that needs to be a constant worry and not anything I'd want to take a quiz on.

But as I say there are different courses for different horses.

Eamonn

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would call the SE and let him do his job.

 

I don't care what he has done or will do......

 

It is irrelevant and your inder obligation to report it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

basement,

 

Yikes,

 

I was notified about both responses, and both referenced your account. So your account may be compromised unless you are possibly using a computer that other forum members use as well?

 

I'd suggest changing password before the other guy does it for you.

Share this post


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
Sign in to follow this  

×