Engineer61

I know Beav loves to beat the drum about child abuse being more from parents that others...unfortunately he never supplies any data. At least on Sexual Assault side (the issue that BSA faces the most), the facts are contrary to Beav's supposition. A July 2000 DoJ report on Sexual Abuse states that only 34% of the sexual assaults on children are done by a family member ... 58% are done by "acquaintances" and 7% by strangers. (Table 6 in reference document) Note that of the Scouting age bracket (12-17) 66% of the sexual assaults are by acquaintances, not strangers or family members. So I'll agree with Beav on the over emphasis of stranger danger to some degree ... the issue with stranger danger is the fear of death of the victim being the final outcome. bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/saycrle.pdf

The OP said, "Presumably feedback from these trial courses was incorporated into the final syllabus." There are two layers to this type of feedback ... feedback from the initial trials (Beta Testing) and CQI (Continuous Quality Improvement) once the program is rolled out. The problem with Beta Testing is that it is a cost-driven exercise. The initial parameter of the exercise is the cost of executing the test and rolling the changes back into the program. Quality of results (or magnitude of improvement) is secondary in Beta Testing. As such, Beta Testing is designed to find the "gross" errors in the program that can be fixed easily, with little cost or time impact. However, if the sample size is insufficient, then there is a high likelihood that large (but not necessarily fatal) errors will be uncovered and fixed. This is where CQI comes in. Feedback is received from every user of the product and the results are correlated and scored based upon severity and cost to remedy. This is probably where BSA falls short. Because we're talking about printed material and face-to-face training from the top down. Changes resulting from CQI are most likely prohibitively expensive to implement for all but the most glaring of changes. Changes that would be implemented would be those issues that are contrary to law, or that involve a major policy shift at National. So the point here is that after the initial testing, there are likely to be few if any changes to parts of the program that are not initiated by a fundamental shift in policy by National. Of course, as you trickle down the food chain, there may be locally initiated changes to satisfy the needs of a given council/district/troop.

I'm curious ... for you SM's and ASM's out there ... We all know the emphasis on YPT, two deep ... da .. da .. da. Have you ever asked your Scout's parents if they trust it? Each of your troops have potentially dozens of parents who are relegated to the sidelines for every outing, summer camp and activity that your troop does. We all see and hear about the abuse cases ... Oregon, Turley that directly involved BSA. I wonder what you would hear if you had a meeting with all of your parents, or better yet a blind town hall with a non-Scout moderator and asked what they thought? Has anyone ever done that?

Indeed ... To my cousin, who we lost in Cambodia in '68. To my brother, who lost a good part of his soul in DaNang '71-'72

Huh? Uniforms are OPTIONAL? Really?

Try this on one for size... Mcqueary may be an Eagle ...

Amazing ... really guys? The simple fact is that the grad assistant SHOULD have pulled that 10 year old out of that shower (by force if necessary) and then called the Police. Not wait to report it to Joe Pa ... that's just protected in the interest of the institution. This circus would have ended right then ... not 10 years later. How many other boys suffered as a result. To circle back to this thread ... does this perhaps this show another reason to avoid College age ASM's ... they can't be expected to take the correct action, regardless of the fallout? Let's say some College ASM witnesses the same act, as was described by the Penn State grad student, in the Camp shower hall ... is he expected to walk away and wait until the next day to inform Camp Staff? If so, then I want my boys no where near any BSA outing. I don't think I'd split hairs over 18 vs 28. In fact if I can't depend on a 28 year old grad student, I sure can't depend on an 18 or 19 year old undergrad. (This message has been edited by Engineer61)

Talk about an oxymoron... you have to PAY to VOLUNTEER? That kind of puts a shot across the bow of community service. Too funny.

"Yah, that's an interestin' one, Engineer61. Goes to John-in-KC's point. Out west it's really funny, because yeh have people who live at lower altitudes and by and large never see or experience snow on da roads as a regular part of life. So they go up into da mountains and hit snow or ice and are often incompetent." There aren't many drivers out there than can handle packed snow, ice or black ice on a 7% or 8% grade for 7 miles....up or down hill. Usually the closures are to keep the professional drivers off the hills...the rest of us are smart enough to stay home.

Highly unlikely that he could make $2700 over then next two years as a 14-16 year old. No one hires kids to mow lawns ... heck, half of us don't have lawns! The cash isn't an issue now anyway. It just seems to me like an excessive expense with little return...just an expensive vacation. My son meets people from different parts of the country and world every new school year...not like BSA has the corner on the market. Actually, BSA in this area is much less culturally diverse than his school classrooms.

I guess the events in State College, PA will make everyone reassess again. 20-something year old grad student ... saw what he saw and didn't call the Police.

Our fees are $2300 with an expected additional of $300-$400 for the incidentals, off-site meals ... etc. For that the entire family somewhere for a week...maybe two. Don't see a lot of benefit ... but it's not my call.

I've had some thoughts on it...but it's been poo-poo'ed away by everyone. The questions I sent to BSA were never answered...guess since I'm not registered, I don't deserve one.

Well, this past weekend, any trips from Central to Northern AZ were automatically cancelled because the main roads were closed by the DPS. Active snowfall is the primary trip killer here. Too many places to drive over the edge.

Good thing this guy wasn't hiking the trail along the South Rim of the GC. Probably find all of them at the bottom of the Abyss. More confidence building for us on the sidelines. Thanks.

Paranoid? Dang right...glad to be as well, as long as my wife has her legal neck stuck out by being a Scout volunteer, I want max paranoia. "Trust, but verify. In that order. " No way... "Verify ... decide if you trust the verification ... consider closely monitored events." Eagle does not equal safe. Eagle92, I'm curious. Sounds like your wife sent you a message ... did you hear it? Say your son does not want to do Scouting...will you accept his choice? Will you continue to volunteer?(This message has been edited by Engineer61)

"Statistically it's far more likely that one of the dads will molest a boy, eh? " That's a given... That's why I don't trust them either... they aren't my buddies, I don't know then other than by sight when I see them 3-4 times a year at CoH's.

I really don't have a problem with the decision ... different time, different world. We, as parents, are constantly being harped at to "take responsibility" for our kids well being .. I think that is what these parents did. If he's really that motivated, he try one of the other 100 troops in the area.

Here is a summary of the state-by-state mandatory reporting statues... http://www.rainn.org/public-policy/legal-resources/mandatory-reporting-database

Peri ... Maybe ... maybe the troop avoid a peck of trouble. Better to be cautious now that apologetic later. Sign of the times folks ... just have to get used to it.

Beavah wrote: "There is longstanding jurisprudence that citizens are not required by law to intervene in or report crimes." That is not the case in Arizona ... I don't know if other states have adopted similar statutes... The Mandatory Reporting Law of the State of Arizona Any person who reasonably believes that a minor is or has been the victim of physical injury, abuse, child abuse, a reportable offense or neglect that appears to have been inflicted on the minor by other than accidental meansshall immediately report or cause reports to be made of this information to a peace officer or to Child Protective Services in the Department of Economic Security, except if the report concerns a person who does not have care, custody or control of the minor, the report shall be made to a peace officer only. (Arizona Revised Statute 13-3620) So, in Arizona, there is NO option but to report to the authorities any "reasonable belief" of abuse of a minor.

"In real life, yeh want to be somewhat mindful as parents and fellow leaders" Hmmm....or more directly, perhaps as parents and leaders we have to assume that some portion of the adults involved with Scouting are pedophiles and because we cannot readily identify them, everyone has to be suspect. Parents and Leaders have to become more aggressive with questioning actions a motives. My wife recently told me of a Adult application her troop received from an Eagle who is in a local university. He had not been a Scout in our troop ... they discussed his application and credentials and went silent ... after several moments of staring at each other, my wife finally said, "OK, I'll say what is on everyone's mind ... Why would a kid in college, with all the activities, workload and what not available to him want to be involved in a Troop that he's not been around; want to help us?" After a collective sigh from the room, they rejected his application. Should that decision be sent to District?

"Was the BSA supposed to call every Scouts Canada troop and warn 'em?" No...but BSA could have called Scouts Canada at the top however. What would have happened then? Most likely nothing.

This website lists the Statute of Limitations for all 50 states for Child Abuse. http://angelroar.com/2010/09/foradults/c-child-abuse-resources-adults/childabusestatuteoflimitationsbystate There are different limits for Civil vs. Criminal actions.

"I know he said it in jest, but we all have to take responsibility for protecting Scouting and what it stands for." Huh? I don't think that came out right. How about protecting the boys ... Scouting will protect itself as a result. "Protecting Scouting" is what has gotten us to this point.