Two deep and driving

[Eagle92]

Sometimes it's hard. I know of one case where a leader is renting a room from another leader, essentially living with the family. They are in same troop, how to handle transport if one dad is working late and the leader renting needs to bring the Scout to the meeting?

 

Then what about the situation I was in recently. Dad and his two scouts show up at a camp out, and while setting up the new tent, realize there was no tarp for it, and it's suppose to rain? Kids are starving, food needs to be cook, and dad needs to get a tarp ASAP. Since this was A) a district event and other folks were around B) other folks were suppose to be there C) My 2 scouts were around and D) I considered this an emergency due to the weather, I kept all four scouts with me while dad went and got a tarp. No one on one, so I felt fine.

 

Now I admit, I have violated YP once, and if I had to I would do it again. One of our staffers fell and broke his arm. I had to drive him to the hospital. I put him in the backseat while I drove.

 

 

 

[fred8033]

SeattlePioneer wrote: "You return to your chartered organization after an outing. Parents stop by to pick up their Scout. One Scout is left over --- no parent has appeared to pick him up and you have no contact with the parent. What would you do? " ... Plan to have another of the leaders have his scouts picked up there too. Or have one of the parents wait with you until the last scout is picked up.

 

....

 

Eagle92 wrote: Dad needing tarp situation ... No youth protection violation. That's one reason why we need two leaders on a camp out. One reason is to prevent abuse. Another reason is to provide coverage during hard situations.

 

....

 

Eagle92 wrote: "One of our staffers fell and broke his arm. I had to drive him to the hospital. I put him in the backseat while I drove." ... I don't think anyone would complain about that violation. When we do ER runs, we always have had two adults in the car. But some understanding can be had in these situations.

 

....

 

Eagle92 wrote: I know of one case where a leader is renting a room from another leader, essentially living with the family. They are in same troop, how to handle transport if one dad is working late and the leader renting needs to bring the Scout to the meeting?" ... Ya know some examples just get too weird and creepy. I'm sure such examples happen. I think I'd want to ask for clarification on how to handle such a situation.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

[Beavah]

Yah, hmmmmm....

 

Well, da real-world answer to gsdad's question if it is allowed for him to give the boy a ride is "Yes." There is no law or social custom against it in da U.S. In fact, the social norms of kindness and consideration in da U.S. would make it expected that he lend a hand in that way.

 

So I suppose da question is whether it's valid to interpret BSA guidance in a way that demands we do somethin' so clearly contrary to common sense and good neighborly values.

 

That's a personal decision that to me is obvious, but then I'm an old-fashioned Christian sort of fellow.

 

One of da tragedies of modern America is how many lads live in single-parent homes, and how many of those are strugglin' financially and personally. It's rough. Those lads aren't goin' to be able to access scouting unless our scouter adults lend a hand here and there. So each of us has to decide whether our Oath to help other people at all times, and be loyal, helpful, courteous, kind, and brave is what we value in a particular case, or whether adherence to generic Policy as a form of Obedience is what we value for a particular case. There are reasons for da generic policy, and folks should be thoughtful about that. Nobody here and certainly nobody at da council office or in Irving can make that judgment for another person.

 

Happily, I reckon most scouters put da Oath first, and as a result a lot of lads who really need scouting and positive adult influences in their life get that. It is one of Scouting's greatest strengths. So even during a scout event, I'd expect scouters to be thoughtful and caring.

 

Now, for every troop I've known, da fact of da matter is that gettin' to a scout meeting is not part of the scout event. It's up to the parents of the lad. Most troops don't collect driver's license and insurance information for a tour plan, don't coordinate da carpool as a troop function, or any of that, eh? The event is listed as bein' at the meeting place, and driving and driving rules begin there.

 

Some boys ride their bikes or walk to meetings (Oh my GOSH! No buddy system! AIEEEEEE!!!)

 

Some lads get sent with Grandpa or Uncle Joe, who might be registered leaders. Yah, it's truly "disgusting" that a grandfather drive his grandson to a scout meeting, one-on-one. In some cases, "Uncle Joe" isn't even related to the lad, he's dad's best friend from work and da lad's godfather. The Horrors!

 

In other cases, it's Mrs. Jones, who is drivin' the carpool for the soccer / scouting run this week, even though First Class Scout Jones is at confirmation class, she's fulfilling her duty to the other families.

 

And yah, sure, sometimes it's Mr. Assistant Scoutmaster who lives nearby and takes kids to the meetin' with da parents' OK.

 

Yeh know what, ohmygosh, I reckon a bunch of lads could come to da troop meeting on ATVs direct from da LaserTag arena, with Billy's older brother being the only adult around!

 

It's not up to us to tell parents what to do, or to tell scouters what to do with their own time. All we can suggest is that they be alert and thoughtful. Maybe consider leavin' da ATV at home and just doin' lasertag next time.

 

So fred8033 is right in that if yeh are in such a position as an adult, yeh should of course be thoughtful about it, eh? There are considerations to be balanced. But da reality is Scouting would be a much smaller, poorer organization if most of our adults start tryin' to apply "policy" outside of its scope instead of just bein' sensible and kind about carin' for kids and families.

 

Beavah

 

[Beavah]

Ya know some examples just get too weird and creepy.

 

Yah, hmmmm....

 

I must have missed somethin'.

 

How is it weird and creepy that a scouter is rentin' an apartment or such from another scouter? I think that would be da sort of thing that would make for a perfect renter / landlord, eh? Folks who share values and interests, and have lived with each other in tents .

 

It would also be an act of kindness. One is gettin' a place to live, the other is gettin' help with his mortgage. Seems Thrifty, not creepy.

 

I think I'd want to ask for clarification on how to handle such a situation.

 

Yah, I know that these days we sort of treat young people like they're incapable, and that has consequences in terms of their behavior and confidence.

 

I don't know how to say this. You're an adult. There's nobody to "ask for clarification" from anymore, eh? Not mom or dad, not some other Authority. You're expected to make your own decisions.

 

Beavah

 

[fred8033]

Beavah,

 

Often your advice is excellent. Often, debatable. But your advice in this thread is indefensible. It scares me that a BSA registered leader says this. It scares me that people might listen to you. And don't for a second cloak your advice and fallacious arguments in being Christian or doing a good deed. It is NOT a personal decision. We MUST follow BSA youth protection policies.

 

No one-on-one contact is a key barrier to abuse. Once you have signed your BSA leader application, that rule applies between you and scouts whether you are in a uniform or not; whether it is before, during or after a meeting. As long as you are a registered leader, it applies 24 hours a day.

 

As long as I'm a registered leader, I'm going to apply that rule to my personal life too. I don't let youth in my house unless my wife or my sons are there. Even then, I usually don't let kids play in my house unless my wife is there too. For myself, I'm as concerned with the perception as the reality.

 

...

 

Now I'm 100% serious about the following statements.

 

If you are a registered leader (or parent) in my scouting units, you're going to know youth protection expectations.

 

If you are a registered leader (or parent at a scouting event), in any unit, I'm going to expect your behavior, decisions and actions are with-in BSA youth protection boundaries.

 

If you regularly skirt any of the YP guidelines, I'm going to look suspiciously on it. I'll be forced to question whether you are an abuser. At best, I'll know you don't take your commitments seriously. At worst, you are now a red flag that I'll be watching.

 

If, as in the thread example, you regularly drive a non-related youth to and from scout meetings, I may or may not confront you on it ... depending on our relationship. But if it continued, I would contact the council Scout Executive both on the phone and in writing to document our conversation providing your name, the scout's name and the situation. I pray that all leaders and knowledgeable parents would do the same.

 

Our BSA adult leader application says:

 

"Notify your Scout executive of this report, or of any violation of BSAs Youth Protection policies, so that he or she may take appropriate action for the safety of our Scouts, make appropriate notifications, and follow up with investigating agencies."

 

...

 

It's not a personal choice. You are a risk if you violate BSA youth protection.

 

...

 

Beavah - The simple fact that you treat this as a personal decision does put a red flag in my head about you. I'm sorry but it does. I'm aghast at the advice and it makes me question what else could be going on. And that's a direct result of your advice on youth protection. Again, I apologize. But you have thrown up a huge red flag. If you actually practice what youre preaching, I'd end up calling the scout exec to protect myself, to protect the charter org and most importantly to protect the scouts.

 

...

 

We had a local SM who repeatedly did minor YP violations, small things that for YEARS raised eyebrows. But nothing to the extent that triggered a phone call. Turns out he was privately abusing selected scouts for YEARS. Grooming them and eventually abusing them. I'm pissed at the SM. I'm sad the scouts didn't say anything. But I'm really, really angry at the ASMs, other leaders and parents who wondered but never did anything.

 

I encourage everyone to hold each other accountable and to lower the bar for when you'd call the Scout Executive with concerns.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

[Beavah]

Yah, hmmm... I always thought I was furry, rather than scary.

 

So would yeh report Uncle Joe to da Scout Executive for bein' one-on-one, drivin' his godson to the meeting when mom and dad couldn't?

Would yeh report Eagle92's fellow for bringin' the lad to a meeting when dad couldn't, even though he lives with the boy and probably regularly babysits one-on-one?

 

Do yeh honestly think da SE is goin' to have any say in such things, which are fundamentally custodial choices of da parents?

 

Yeh seem to believe that it's policy that keeps people safe, and that's just false, eh? I'd say it's dangerously naive, in fact. That's from somebody who has dealt with many more cases of child abuse than you have, whose experience in da area is both deeper and broader.

 

I get that yeh tend to get in a lather with anybody who exercises judgment in applyin' policy in a way different than how you want to read it, whether it's kids in cars or givin' advancement to lads. I get that, and I'm OK with it. I think that's a stage of personal and moral development that lots of folks go through.

 

I'm also OK that yeh would perhaps not welcome me as a leader. Different folks like or need different personalities to work with, and different COs have different goals. There are many units which I support that I wouldn't be a good fit for as a unit volunteer. On da flip side, sometimes I think that I would perhaps be a touch reluctant to trust you with da welfare of children. Because in my book, it's wisdom and sound judgment that matter most in workin' with kids, and sometimes yeh seem reluctant or unable to demonstrate such personal judgment and responsibility. Then I shake my head and say "Nah, he's just comin' across that way because of da awkward, overly energetic and black-and white dialog that internet forums tend to create." That to my mind is da more sound explanation, because almost every scouter I've known in real life has been a remarkably good fellow at heart.

 

So let's agree that everyone here cares deeply about kids and is offerin' the best advice they can from their own experience and perspectives, eh? I understand where you're comin' from, and would agree that folks should be prudent and thoughtful about such things. Do yeh think perhaps that yeh can recognize that other folks here have wisdom and experience that can be taken into account without goin' so far as accusin' 'em of endangering children?

 

In the end, though, if a mom and her lad came out and worked da whole day as popcorn kernel on behalf of the pack, and she had so much junk of the pack's in her car because of her kindness and commitment, and she asked me after the event to take her lad home on the way with her following me, I absolutely would do it. Because I gave da world my Oath, eh? On my honor, I will do my best...

 

Beavah

 

 

[OldGreyEagle]

In such a scenario Beavah, I would think it would be best if you drove the overloaded only room for the driver car and let her drive her son in yours...

 

Otherwise fred, fred, fred, I come not to defend Beavah, heck I disagree with about half the time I can understand what he is talking about, and that is not often but I am not sure Beavah's behavior raises any red flags. Having said that, if everyone, parents and leaders get to know each other then everyone is well served

[fred8033]

Beavah - I have no trouble believing you and most scouters mean well. One time events because of exceptional situations (car full of popcorn, etc), tolerable. Not preferred, but tolerable. Also, someone else can define if driving your "god-son" home is driving a "related" youth. But let's be clear.

 

CHILD ABUSE HAPPENS BECAUSE OF THE POSITION YOUR TAKING. Absolutely.

 

I'll stick with what I said. And this is not an extreme of being on an internet forum. If you regularly drive a non-related youth to and from scout meetings, I may or may not confront you on it ... depending on our relationship. But if it continued, I would contact the council Scout Executive both on the phone and in writing to document our conversation providing your name, the scout's name and the situation. I pray that all leaders and knowledgeable parents would do the same.

 

...

 

The example in this thread I was refering to is the one ASM162 descibed. Regularly driving a non-related scout of a single mother 10 miles between towns. That's 100% wrong and it's a grooming situation to prepare that scout to be abused.

 

...

 

Beavah wrote: "Do yeh honestly think da SE is goin' to have any say in such things, which are fundamentally custodial choices of da parents?" ... Registered BSA leaders represent the BSA. BSA has laid out the expectations. If can't live within those rules, you should not be a leader representing the BSA and having authority over the scouts. Single unique situations are not good, but do happen. Patterns need to be recognized and curbed quickly.

 

In this day and age, if a SE is confronted with such a situation, I'd expect the SE will deal with it. I probably won't hear the results due to privacy rules, but it will be addressed.

 

...

 

Beavah - Since you don't take one-on-one contact as a strict rule, how about other youth protection rules? Sharing a tent? A shower? Skinny dipping? Hazing? Bullying? Corporal punishment? Heck, do you host youth sleep overs at your house?

 

How do you pick and choose which rules your "judgement" deems optional!

 

...

 

Beavah - Your advice on this is just plain old creepy. I'd hope we'd all have learned something over the last 20 years.

 

...

 

OldGreyEagle wrote: "Having said that, if everyone, parents and leaders get to know each other then everyone is well served."

 

As far as youth protection, gettting to know each other doesn't help. What does an abuser look like? How do they behave?

 

Well, they look like you and me and can be our best friends. They build trust. They often dedicate much of their life to helping youth. Usually, they are trusted friends of the scout and/or his family ... as Beavah's god-son example. Often they volunteer to take the extra step to help youth. ... "Sure, I'll drive you home." ... "Come over for extra practice." ... "Let's meet at my house."

 

Once or twice raises a red flag for me to watch for a pattern. The shortest pattern of YP violations needs to be dealt with quickly.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

[Beavah]

 

CHILD ABUSE HAPPENS BECAUSE OF THE POSITION YOUR TAKING. Absolutely.

 

Yah, this is what is called a "claim."

 

Makin' your claim by shoutin' louder in all caps and bold does not make your claim stronger.

 

In order to make your claim stronger or more convincing, yeh need somethin' called "evidence" and "reasoning."

 

Now, I reckon that if we really knew "absolutely" what causes child abuse to happen, then that would be a genuine gift to society, eh? So I'm willin' to listen. What is your evidence that child abuse happens because people are understandin' and kind to each other, and try to be helpful to kids and families even if it means that they drive a lad home when mom asks 'em to?

 

As I said, I am certain that I have seen far more genuine cases of abuse than you have just by virtue of my profession, and am more aware of da law and da literature than you are. That means I know things like an SE isn't goin' to interfere in da custodial decisions of mom and dad outside of scoutin' activities. But every now and again someone comes up with a brilliant idea, supported by clear and convincing evidence and careful reasoning. So I'm all ears!

 

(note to OGE: Yah, yeh know I'm an old fashioned fellow and still drive a stick shift. For some reason lots of da moms and quite a few of the dads around here can't drive manuals. Otherwise, I'd agree with yeh!)

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[fred8033]

Beavah,

 

It's more than a claim. And youre saying you've dealt with more because of your profession and experiences is ignorant of at least 50% of the facts.

 

Youve asked for evidence or reasoning. The trouble is that most of this is obvious common sense. Obvious that you follow the rules that youve put your name on the paper to follow. Obvious that you set an example by your own actions. Obvious that an organization that attracts child abusers needs to take child abuse seriously. Obvious that your example set boundaries that others use for appropriate behavior. That if you let your guard down then you are opening the door to abuse.

 

http://www.cbc.ca./news/canada/ottawa/story/2012/06/25/scouts-talach-reaction.html ... Robert Talach, a lawyer in London, Ont., who deals with sex abuse cases, says 'an organization that deals with that many children will in perpetuity, be attracting sex offenders you have to be eternally vigilant.' I hope we can pretty much all agree on this. Thieves rob banks because thats where the money is. Same thing with scouts.

 

But if you want to take BSAs rules as only advice, how about using CDC advice from the US Gov., page 11. One on one interactions Out of program contact restrictions. http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/PreventingChildSexualAbuse-a.pdf

 

CDC also has a good statement in the introduction. Balancing Caution and Caring ... The same dynamics that create a nurturing environment, and may ultimately protect against child sexual abuse, can also open the doors to sexually abusive behaviors. Research has shown that youth who are emotionally insecure, needy, and unsupported may be more vulnerable to the attentions of offenders. By promoting close and caring relationships between youth and adults, organization can help youth feel supported and loved and thus reduce their risk of child sexual abuse. But that same closeness between a youth and an adult can also provide the opportunity for abuse to occur. When developing policies for child sexual abuse prevention, organizations must balance the need to keep youth safe with the need to nurture and care for them.

 

CDC recommends limiting out-of-program contact. It's part of BSA's rules. No one-on-one contact. Not limited or do your best or only if you think it's okay. It's no one-on-one contact.

[qwazse]

Oh snap! One of my venturers came to my office and we commuted home together so she could have dinner with my daughter who was in town for the weekend. We even sat in the same seat and talked about the weighty matters of life and backpacking trips (not there's a distinction)! Between changing busses downtown, we should have dashed to HQ and turned ourselves into the SE.

 

My bad. Guess I shouldn't blab about it. Oh wait, her mom called her while we were in transit! The young lady told her "I'm on the bus with Mr. Q.". I even said "Hi." THERE'S A TRAIL OF EVIDENCE! Worse, mom, took YPT.

 

I'm so screwed.

[Beavah]

It's more than a claim.

 

Nah, it's just a claim until yeh provide reasoning and evidence. In fact it's a somewhat mean-spirited claim to make about anyone, eh? Especially someone involved in Scoutin' who cares about kids.

 

Now, let's look at da purported evidence from your last post.

 

First, we have a quote from some Canadian attorney who makes his living off of plaintiff lawsuits claimin' that ... plaintiff lawsuits to hold people accountable are a good thing. Shocked I am! That's advocacy, not evidence. Remember when interviews with cigarette manufacturers claimed cigarettes were a good thing?

 

Next, we have a quote from a CDC document which makes my case, rather than yours. Did yeh actually read the document? It doesn't even advocate no one-on-one, eh? In fact it suggests that if da mission of da organization involves mentoring youth (which scouting certainly does), one-on-one is necessary and should be balanced by other safeguards like stricter screening. I've been makin' that point for years.

 

Da quote you provide also perfectly matches my position, eh? Molesters mimic many of da behaviors of the sorts of adults that kids need in their life - the adults we want 'em to have contact with. Da dynamics which may "ultimately protect against child sexual abuse" includin' havin' lots of caring adults involved in a child's life so as to make kids secure, confident, and well-supported also mean that there are openings to abusive behaviors. In other words, if we focus on policies which have da effect of reducing access and contact for fear of abusive behaviors, it leaves children who are "emotionally insecure, needy, and unsupported [who] may be more vulnerable to the attentions of offenders." By contrast, "promoting close and caring relationships between youth and adults, organizations can help youth feel supported and loved and thus reduce their risk of child sexual abuse."

 

Yah, that is my point exactly. It's da presence and support of lots of caring adults in kids' lives that keeps 'em safe, not "policy." And like da Bayesian statistics case I illustrated in da spin-off thread, yeh can do real harm usin' evidence-based approaches to respond to small populations of perpetrators if yeh don't take into account how those approaches' "false positives" affect da larger population of good people.

 

One of da cases of child sexual abuse that I'm familiar with was in fact discovered when a scouter drove a lad home alone, and noticed the lad's behavior as they approached the house. Bein' alone with da scouter gave the boy the space to open up and eventually led to the arrest of the mom's boyfriend for sexual battery against a minor. Boys don't talk about these things when standin' around in a two-deep, no one-on-one group, eh? They talk about 'em one-on-one in private with an adult that they trust. If by policy and fear we isolate kids from da many, many genuinely caring adults out there, we leave 'em more vulnerable to da perpetrators, eh? And trust me, no "policy" ever kept a perpetrator from doin' harm.

 

Da real challenge here, though, is da balance between institutional protection and actually protectin' kids. Those aren't the same thing. Both are necessary, but da policy approaches as a whole are mostly focused on institutional protection, not children. So when we look at such policies in terms of kids, there's a mismatch.

 

I fully admit that within da field I'm an outlier, eh? I think da best institutional protection is not to focus on institutional protection, but to focus on doin' what's right for kids. Bake a great cake and yeh won't need lots of frosting to try to cover it up.

 

Beavah

 

[DeanRx]

OK, throwing some non-BSA approved liquid fire accelerant on the proverbial campfire here...

 

Fred, What ya gonna do when Johnny shows up to the scout meeting with Mom's BOYFRIEND driving him because he lives with the lad and mom is working late or home with a younger sibling? Dude is NOT related to the youth, not even as an extended family member.

 

What ya gonna do on cub scout family campouts? Gonna require everyone to bring in a copy of their marriage certificate before you allow the youth to tent in with the family, just in case mom's boyfriend comes along on the campout?

 

You really want to put yourself in the "moral police" mode because according to you these types of things CAUSE child abuse to happen ?!?!?

 

What about the time I went into the youth only shower (gasp!)at camp because a lad had slipped and may have fractured his wrist in there and the ONLY other unit leader in camp at the time was female. Guess I should have had HER come along into the shower with me so I didn't violate YPG - its OK if she sees 4 or 5 male youth (not her son) in the buff, so long as I'm with her right?

 

We make judgements, we are asked to make judgements... its part of being a responsbile adult. I agree that someone who routinely violates YPG or downplays its importance COULD be a problem. However, its a very quick jump to ASSUME this means they are more likely to be a child molester. In both my personal and professional expierince - the opposite seems to be true.

 

1) An abuser doe NOT like to draw attention to themselves and their activities. They would likely go out of their way to show other adults they are NOT in violation of any guidelines, as not to arouse suspicision.

 

2) An abuser looks for opportunities to isolate a youth and gain trust. Pretty hard to abuse a youth in a moving car while you are driving!! Maybe someone could do some grooming, but there is a time limit, unless the drive is unusually long.

 

3) You better damn well have some pretty good evidence before you go calling the DE or SE on every little YPG issue. Otherwise, you are more likely to be known as the council-wide "chicken little" at best, and at worst open yourself for a defamation lawsuit. Get everyone kicked out and pretty soon you are the only leader left.

 

Its one thing to take a fellow leader aside and say, "Hey, probably not a good idea to do x,y,z... it could be viewed as a youth protection violation..." Its totally another to start unsubstatiated whitch hunts against fellow adult leaders.

 

It'd advise that you might want to ask one or two other "leaders" in your unit for their take on an issue before moving ahead with reporting up the chain of command to see if THEY think its as serious as you do... but I fear folks like you have two views on this issue - yours, which is right and someone else's who is wrong. Afterall, you are the self appointed sherrif, judge and jury on the subject.

[fred8033]

qwazse: Your riding the bus with your venturer is not an issue.

 

DeanRx: This is not about being the moral police or monitoring non-BSA people outside BSA events.

 

Beavah - You have a truely evil gift to twist peoples words. I've read the document. The CDC never says one-on-one contact is necessary. CDC's first advice is "Limit one-on-one contact". It gives three options of which BSA has chosen NO one-on-one contact. That's the policy. If ya don't like it, you should never have signed a leader application.

 

I don't have BSA's reasoning, but I suspect BSA chose no one-on-one contact because BSA does not think it's necessary as a regular on-going part of the program and also because BSA can't manage the risk, screening or supervision.

 

For the other CDC suggested, non-BSA chosen, options, CDC says additional supervision and screening and program risk assessment. Big Brothers of America is an implementation example of these options. Big Brothers has extensive screening and supervision such as monitoring volunteer Facebook and other social media activity. Requiring supervisory monthly meetings between paid staff and volunteers, youth and parents/guardians. So if BSA can afford professional staff to coordinate and meet each month with each registered volunteer, each scout and each parent and have enough volunteers to monitor each investigate and research each volunteers social media activities, then cool. I'm fine with it. But I have a hard enough time getting parents to show up even once a year to a annual parent information meeting.

 

Beavah - I'm amazed at the depths you go to twist quotes. You scare me. Honestly scare me. The CDC "Balancing Caution and Caring" is the basis for designing the youth protection policy of which CDC's first advice is limiting one-on-one contact. We show caring, love and concern for our scouts at meetings, at activities and outside scouting too but we follow BSA's youth protection policy of no one-on-one contact. Playing games such as at a scout activity or not at a scout activity is just wrong. Justifying violating youth protection because the violation once led to discovering real abuse is perverse. Sure it probably does discover abuse at times, but it probably creates more abuse more often.

 

...

 

Beavah - You keep trying to differentiate between "actually" and something else. Actually screen. Actually care. Actually protect. The trouble is the "actually" doesn't exist. Never has and never will. Youth programs attrack abusers. Always has. Always will. BSA has always had a losely coupled structure. CORs really don't screen and supervise volunteers much at all. Unless BSA wants and can afford the infrastructure of programs like Big Brothers of America, we have a program that needs the firm enforcement of no one-on-one contact.

 

...

 

I guess you can twist and mock with examples of public transportation, uncle joe or the mom's boy friend giving the ride or a car full of popcorn. Those all are all useless distractions.

 

BSA youth protection includes no one-on-one contact. That's the program. If you don't like it, then don't be part of it.

 

....

 

DeanRx: I need to address your assumptions.

 

You wrote: "1) An abuser doe NOT like to draw attention to themselves and their activities." ... Yeah, that's not true at all. Jerry Sandusky created "The Second Mile" program with hired staff, fundraising and a very visible program. Look at the LA Times published scout files. Filled with good examples of scout leaders recognized in local papers, receiving significant scout awards and only later discovered that they were abusing scouts at the same time. Those LA times published exammples seem consistent with other examples of teachers receiving special awards / acknowledgements, etc.

 

Good quote: "Despite stereotypes of creepy-looking men in white vans, child abusers are actually usually the most likeable, gregarious people around, Issa said. They get close to kids not only by charming them, but by charming the people protecting them. ... "They don't only groom the kid, they groom the parents," Issa said." ... http://www.livescience.com/17031-penn-state-child-abuse-eyewitness-psychology.html

 

you wrote: "2) An abuser looks for opportunities to isolate a youth and gain trust. Pretty hard to abuse a youth in a moving car while you are driving!! Maybe someone could do some grooming, but there is a time limit, unless the drive is unusually long. " ... One time, maybe. If it's a recurring event, it gets much easier. A hand put in the wrong place. Making excuses for why a 15 minute trip took 30 or 40 minutes. Even if it's a direct ride, it's a grooming situation by being issolated and vulnerable.

 

you wrote: "3) You better damn well have some pretty good evidence before you go calling the DE or SE on every little YPG issue. Otherwise, you are more likely to be known as the council-wide "chicken little" at best, and at worst open yourself for a defamation lawsuit. Get everyone kicked out and pretty soon you are the only leader left. " ... I doubt that. There are privacy rules. Any SE violating those rules would be in significant trouble. ... Plus, I've yet to have a case where I had to contact the SE. I have had cases where I've talked with adult leaders. Most recently, I've had to call a new adult leader out of a youth tent because they were playing magic cards alone with the youth in their tent. It was their first camp out since becoming an adult. ... I've had discussions with other adults about driving youth and other situations. Continually we have planning discussions so that we don't violate the no one-on-one contact policy. Commonly, those discussions are at a camp out on Sunday morning around 8am when we are planning for who rides in who's car. ... BUT ... if I heard of a registered scout volunteer reguarly driving a scout alone in their car, I would either directly deal with it or contact the SE. You can't assume the volunteer is a good person even if that volunteer is your best friend. I'm not saying you scream abuse. I'm saying you deal with it.

 

DeanRx - I'm not the self appointed sheriff on anything. I'm just disgusted that people make excuses for violating the BSA protections against child abuse. It's creepy.

 

 

....

 

The earlier CDC publication on "Preventing Child Sexual Abuse in Youth Serving Organizations: Getting Started on Policies and Procedures" had as a primary author Janet Saul, Ph.D., Division of Violence Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. Dr. Saul said ...

 

"...criminal background checks weren't sufficient that training and firmly enforced prevention policies also were essential..." ... http://www.lhacbsa.org/News/YouthProtection(This message has been edited by fred8033)

[Beavah]

Yah, fred8033, to bring things back 'round to da original point, your favorite CDC document echoes my guidance, and says "Your organization should clarify when it is responsible for youth and when caregivers are responsible." Gettin' lads to and from a meeting in every scout unit I know is a situation when the caregivers are responsible, eh? So it's the parent(s) choice who gets to drive Johnny to the meeting, includin' whether it's one-on-one or whether it has to be in a bus with 30 witnesses. BSA guidance doesn't apply outside of Scoutin', or I wouldn't have been able to take my grandson duck huntin' this weekend.

 

Perhaps that's twistin' words, but if so I reckon da vast majority of folks are just fine with me takin' my grandson duck huntin', even though we were drivin' back one-on-one and stoppin' for burgers and ice cream. Yah, sure, and even though one of da things molesters do is be caring and grandfatherly and give kids opportunities and buy 'em burgers and ice cream. It just also happens to be da sort of thing good grandpas do. And lest yeh think it's limited to relatives, there are a lot of lads who've lost dads in Iraq or Afghanistan where their buddies are fulfillin' that dad or grandpa role.

 

 

For da rest, I reckon we're just approachin' things from different levels of experience. Yeh seem to want everything to be nice, neat, cut and dried policy given from Authority, so right and wrong is defined for yeh in a quote. In fact yeh seem to be traipsin' all over da interwebs lookin' for Authorities to pull out of context quotes from. I understand that impulse.

 

Da problem is that I know lots of people who write regulation and policy, and I've done my share of draftin' laws and regulations and policies. Even written a few quickie solicited reports for groups or agencies like da CDC one that yeh pulled out. So I know from personal experience that we're a pretty fallible lot, eh? I wouldn't want anybody treatin' these sorts of writings as definitions of right or wrong, or pullin' a few sentences that I wrote on a late-night deadline and usin' 'em as gospel. I'd hope that they took da time to inform themselves more deeply, and interpreted what I wrote intelligently and from a broader context.

 

So from da point of view of a fellow who has actually read a couple of da actual journal articles referenced by da CDC piece and who has some level of experience in da area, I don't think I was twistin' any words. I was explainin' what da plain language of da quote actually said and meant. When you understand that da greatest risk of abuse and neglect comes from parents and in-home relatives, yeh appreciate da balance talked about in the quote between isolating kids from caring adults who can recognize and be supportive outside da family, and protecting 'em from potential non-parent abusers. Is da possibility that grandpa will abuse the lad on the car ride home from huntin' what's important, or da possibility that havin' grandpa to talk to on the car ride home will let him share his concerns about mom's brother Fred, or about friends usin' drugs at school and askin' him to join in?

 

And yeh know, when yeh have actual experience with da fallibility of social services and law enforcement, and you've known dozens of SE's and their level of experience personally, yeh better appreciate that these things aren't simple enough to be answered simplistically.

 

Beavah