LongHaul

>>A young man fails to request permission to enter the yard. While in the yard he fails to assure clear distance around him (other people/objects) prior to using an axe. No one was hurt but someone else was in his way and could have been hurt. He repeatedly embeds his axe in the ground. He jokes about "going after" another scout with the axe.

>>Who supervises your axe yard - scout, adult, both?

We call our first year program Adventure Patrol. The boys come back with a list of all the requirements for T to 1st Class and have the ones they passed checked off. It's up to the troop to either accept this or retest. Along with advancement the Adventure Patrol does a complete "tour" of our reservation's opportunities. They find out about all the different things available to them over the next years. As returning campers they can make more informed choices as to what they want to do. As for actual skill aquisition you can't beat a 1 to 1 experienced scout teaching a new scout. I don't know of any summer program that can offer that ratio except on the troop level. Summmer Camp should be fun first. LongHaul(This message has been edited by LongHaul)

Being an MC and an ASM really shouldn't make a difference if you understand each position and agree execute the responsibility of the resective position. When an ASM tries to use the position of MC to "impose" some will upon a SM in terms of program, it tells me that they don't understand any of the three positions. Let's just say for a moment that these SAs or ASMs decide to recharter as MCs but still attend meetings and campouts and do everything they did before. What has changed? What has improved? Attending training, being trained, and performing within an area of responsibility are not always inter changeable concepts. LongHaul

The online site has been changed and no longer uses the old video as a base. While I will in the future recommend the online training more I still feel it needs serious work. Continuity seems to be lost, and some questions seem to be worded poorly. Question #4 If a child discloses abuse to you that has occurred within the Scouting Program you should first call his or her parents? True or False According to the online training the answer is false. If you remove the word first would that make it true? Cant ask that with the online training. Could the question as worded give some leaders the impression that the parents should not be notified? This is abuse which happened within the Scouting program so it would not generally be domestic or involving the parents, the parents are not the threat. In the section titled abuse, # 11 of 16 involves a cub scout that reports to a den leader and the instructions are to contact both the SE and civil authorities but further on Scenario 2 of 5 involves a Boy Scout that discloses the options are to contact the SE or continue asking questions so that you can give an accurate report to the civil authorities the online instructions are to contact the SE and not ask further questions of the boy. 4 of 5 specifically says not to try and investigate let the SE handle the situation. Again would this give the average adult attending the training the impression that they should not also contact the civil authorities? What is the difference between the Cub Scout reporting and the Boy Scout reporting? It is my experience that when confused people will do nothing. As for the online training containing local or state laws, I see no evidence of that. When one down loads the local council reporting procedures it gives the local council procedures and in many cases these directly contradict the information previously given during the training. Chicago area council borders North West Suburban Council, NorthEast Illinois Council, Calumet Council among others. In viewing each local council reporting procedures the line If an immediate report is to be made due to extreme urgency... which leads me to believe this is a standard statement coming from National. What constitutes extreme urgency? Why does it seem to be present in the Cub Scout case but not the Boy Scout case? How does this relate to 2 of 5 and 4 of 5 which tells you to let the SE handle it? I do feel that this is a good training and is better than just having a person watch the local YP training video without a presenter filling in details but it seems like a one size fits all attempt and is contradictory of itself and vague in definition so local standards can be applied but local standards are not given. I would like to see National make the online version available for local presentation and loose the current video. I like the online approach, and see ways it could be adapted to local group presentation. LongHaul

I came back here to delete my previous post but Scoutnut beat me here so I'll leave it. It is obvious from my post that I had not been to the online site in some time. As Scoutnut has posted here and in the other thread about YP the site has been greatly changed over the time it has been available. I have not finished reviewing the site, I logged off to correct my serious error here and am going back to for an indepth edification. LongHaul

Any luck in the "and have then trained" area? Possibly having someone explain the job to them might help them understand the purpose and function of a TC. LongHaul

Online training is great but offers no opportunity for questions or feed back. The online YP training uses a video made in the early 90's which was updated in 2005 to include three scenarios for discussion. It does not address local laws, it does not address legal decisions made after the video was produced, it does not address "local standards" which is the yard stick for reasonable suspicion. What might pass for abusive behavior by a parent will vary from coast to coast. Ethical abuse is not on the online training because it(the video) was made some 15 years ago, Ethical abuse, as I stated in the other thread, is the newest of the bunch. Youll hear it again give it time. The whole point is why are we taking this training? If it is to be better informed about the subject how can a one size fits all, out of date, video do that? Every one of the 50 states has a different local standard and laws concerning this subject. Many of the laws are the same except to a lawyer and a judge and therefore a jury. There was a case, in California I believe, where a boy was charged with rape because it took him over 30 seconds to withdraw after the girl changed her mind. Im aware of this because a similar law based on the California(?) law was presented to the general assembly in Illinois. Not every state, at the time Illinois had no such law, goes to this extreme. Local law has to be a part of the training if it is to be of any value IMO. If on the other hand we are taking the training so we can flash a trained card and National can hide behind They were trained, its not our responsibility then the online video works great, we can pass around a copy of the answers and everyone will get 100%. If we as presenters of training are to be asked to simply show the video and read the script then I say National should make ALL training online compatible. The people that dont have computers could sit in a room and watch a DVD and get a trained card as they leave. A District in my council just did SM/ASM specific training for 1 person. Training was scheduled years in advance (this district has its 2009 training calendar available online) 1 person signed up so training is held as promised. Wouldnt it be great if we could just send this leader a DVD and maybe he/she could take a short test later. Everyone could be a trained leader with little inconvenience. LongHaul (This message has been edited by LongHaul)

Lisabob, I PM'ed you let me know if you get it or not. LongHaul

I agree with ljnrsu that the requirements are less demanding. Id like to see some of the Scoutcraft brought back. If I could change one thing, it would be to have the boys work on one rank at a time. I teach you safe hiking, then I teach you to use a compass and a map then I have you use the compass and a map to take a 1 mile orienteering course. I teach you to assist in food preparation, then I ask you plan a menu and cook food for yourself, then I ask you to plan a menu, purchase food and be head cook for the entire patrol. The ranks build on each other, done out of order I think the boys loose part of the experience. LongHaul

Whose job is it to help this pack? Everyone you mentioned, BUT first we must identify what help is needed. Ive never been a UC never even played one on stage so I dont know how they are trained, BUT that is the position I would identify as being to place to look for the info needed. The original leaders have left, did they train replacements? IS the current leadership trained? As has been said it is not a District function to find leadership for the units. The DE and DC could help the CO/COR and CC understand how to recruit leaders and what to look for but the DE probably wont know prospective candidates. If the PTO is the CO seems the PTO would be in a better position to know who the volunteers are in this school in the bottom three grades which would be our pool. Recruiting boys for a pack that has poor leadership doesnt help the pack or the boys. LongHaul

>>Ekmiranda's quote that started the thread was referring to running away and medication holidays - things that were not criminal.<< In your opinion which is indeed the topic of this thread. Withholding medication on a regular basis can be viewed as reasonable suspicion that this childs need are possibly being neglected. >>If we take the example of a boy who is showing up at scouting events with persistent bruising, that's going to land in the "child abuse and neglect" category in all states, so a different set of expectations apply.<< What example? I dont find, when I read back on previous posts and example referring to a boy showing up with persistent bruising. >>I think it's important for everyone to understand that training videos, including the YP tape, are not policy documents. They aren't updated frequently enough, and we are not able to produce separate videos for each state to reflect state law and local conditions. Instead, properly done YPT is supposed to provide participants with written and verbal information that informs them on those important issues for their area. Here in our state and in most others, when reporting suspected child abuse by parents, scouters are advised to call child protective services, and not the SE. The reason is that calling child protective services (or law enforcement if that's needed) protects the scouter with statutory immunity, while telling the SE (or any other private individual) that you think someone is abusing their kid may expose the scouter to suit for slander.<< Am I to understand that in your opinion the video we are required to watch and the training we are required to take and retake, sometimes yearly, is not supposed to be taken literally and we as Scouters are not required to follow that training? National puts this tape out and requires us to watch it but doesn't expect us to take it seriously? LongHaul

>>"I think "attacking" is probably bad form in general, eh? And I'm glad you recognize and admit that was really your intent.<<" You don't see the inconsistency in that statement? You dont see how that can be interpreted as a personal attack on me? Asking if an attack without names is OK is declaring that a previous post was an attack? Because I see your post as an attack upon me should I therefore view all your posts on threads I have also posted to a personal attack on me? Please explain how your posts in reply to my post about NSP and FCFY were not attacks. I did not view them as attacks upon me personally but as attacks none the less, you dont like NSP or FCFY and are strongly opinionated about them. When a person that presents themselves as having considerable knowledge and experience posts something it is received differently than posts made by those who have shown themselves to be axe grinders or single issue posters. When a forum member that can be read in almost every area post something like; "The example I want to propose is a boy who shows up with persistent bruises, like the example used in the Adult YPT video. In such a case, I think it is important to notify the SE as the video suggests, because X, Y, Z." or "I had a case once with a boy who A, B, C, and here's how we handled it. The outcome was good, but if I were to do it again I'd do X, Y, Z", in support of their argument no one should cry foul? The video you refer to says NOTHING about persistent and that is the whole point being made. The video presents this as the first time the leader becomes aware of this POSSIBLE YP issue and asks what should you do? It goes on to explain what BSA says you should do. Try to follow your suggestions for a while in reference to the things I post. Do not refer to me or word your posts so that it would seem to a person that has never read any of our previous posts that you thought I was wrong. Word your post as if they were merely another perfectly acceptable alternative to go side by side with my perfectly acceptable alternative. LongHaul

I am posting this to the entire group even though I am addressing what was posted by a specific forum member. I titled this thread Yp or not YP that is the question because that is what I wanted to discuss. When does it become a YP issue. YP is not a common term outside of Scouting. Youth Protection is something most people would understand but walking up to a stranger on the street after both of you had witnessed a parent slap a child and asking Is that a YP issue? probably wouldnt get a response from a non scouter. YP was meant to refer to something we as scouters felt required us to follow what we are taught when we have to sit and watch That video. In the first scenario no bruises are seen by the leader, no information of a first hand nature is obtained. Even the alleged bruises are something third hand. The co-leaders son supposedly saw them, it is not made clear that the son actually saw the bruises. The training and the tape instruct leaders to inform the SE. Because it was discovered during a scouting activity it is, again according to the tape to be reported to the SE. The tape goes on to say that the SE will notify the authorities and that the leader should let the SE handle the problem. >>"My recommendation especially to mandatory reporters is to call child protective services (or law enforcement if needed) but not the SE.">"That's consistent with BSA policy, BTW. SE notification is mandatory only for acts committed within Scouting (i.e. where there's a BSA liability component and insurance/risk management needs to be brought in).

So Beavah am I to understand that what is being proposed is that the post refered to should have read something like; After reading the post on courtesy and the request for sanctions against those found rude I have to wonder about some posts. Why would we report non criminal activity to our SE? Because that is what the YP Instructional video instructs us to do. While I know that following the rules is not high on the list for some how is telling new scouters that may be reading these forums to disregard what BSA tells them a good thing? The first scenario on the tape discusses a boy that reportedly has bruises and refuses to talk with his leader. The tape suggests that this information be passed along to the SE. Some forum members feel that they are better educated and equipped to handle these situations than some professional scouter but should we assume those new forum members are equally educated? Some will find this post to be a personal attack because it suits them. I am offended by forum members that have built a reputation as being well informed and having considerable experience, there by being seen as someone to be listened to by the newer members, telling others that some method of handling a possible YP issue is an acceptable response in direct opposition to what BSA says. Its not your responsibility to investigate. Comes right from the tape. If a forum member is going to take positions that are directly contrary to BSA policy please do it in a less condescending manner. Many of us bend or disregard the written rule but don't chastize those who follow the rules. Would that have been more acceptable even if it appeared directly after the post to which it obviously refers? Is attacking what a forum member posts acceptable as long as no names or references to just which post the attack is related to are used or made? LongHaul

I'm all in favor of and insistant upon balanced meals. Hot dogs and hamburgers are limited to twice a year for patrol lunch menus. Pizza is limited to twice a year as a dinner item. We had a rash hot dogs and frozen pizza outings. I do remember however a boy that was in my troop as a youth. Brian would eat NOTHING except Campbell's chicken noodle soup. Breakfast, lunch and dinner, he never attended summer camp because he would have had to eat other food. This boy was a scout for over 4 years, made star I think, fun guy and good scout. I don't know how I, as SM, would handle this today. LongHaul

All I can say is this is how it is done in Chicago Area Council. We have to turn in the front portion of the Blue Card with the advancement report in order for the advancement to be recorded by council. We used to turn these in at the council office, now we are using the online advancement National came up with and are required to turn in a copy of the advancement report with any necessary signatures and the front portion of any merit badge cards to the district advancement chair before our online report will be validated. Should a boy reach the point he is applying for Eagle and he finds that a merit badge has not been recorded with National his portion of the Blue Card will only tell him where to go to get a replacement front portion to submit. By this I mean the applicants portion is not accepted as proof of completion. What more if the boy has already turned 18 any new advancement will not be accepted no matter when the badge was actually earned. Unless you have a copy of the advancement report with the badge listed as having been submitted AND THAT REPORT CONTAINS ADVANCEMENT WHICH WAS RECORDED, (proving the advancement report was actually received) you have a problem which only National can solve. LongHaul Sorry for the caps but the format option would not work, wanted to just bold face the text

Actually coercion involves the use of force which is not a pre requisite for abuse. I do think that creation of a new class if you will is an attempt to broaden the scope of the abuse umbrella. There are those that want to have the right to come into every home and tell people how to raise and interact with their children. If you hit them its physical abuse, if you talk harsh to them its mental abuse, if you punish them its physiological abuse, if you just let them do what they want its neglect. There should be no doubt that children should be protected against abuse of all kinds but sometimes those definitions become so all encompassing that they defeat the original purpose IMO. The more things that are defined as abusive the less attention people pay to actual abuse, again IMO. LongHaul

Who is to report what to whom? Pretty much why I started this thread. Ethical abuse is the newest of the group; defined as "harming and individual by convincing him or her to do an act that is against his or her physical, moral, or ethical interests." If you learn about the abuse or if the signs of a possible abusive situation are brought to your attention during a Scouting event you are supposed to make "Scouting" aware of these facts. "Scouting" locally is one's SE. Whether I agree with this or whether I think "abuse" is being exploited by those who want to "legislate" and "police" our lives is irrelevant. What I do personally and what I am bound to teach during YP Instruction may not always match. But telling someone my way is proper and BSA's way is wrong needs to be done in a manner that offers in depth discussion from both sides. I started this thread to find out what is being taught under the heading of YP. LongHaul

Beavah, After reading your post on courtesy and your request for sanctions against those you find rude I have to wonder about some of your other posts. Why would we report non criminal activity to our SE? Have you watched the recent YP Adult Leader video? While I know following rules is not high on your list how is telling those new forum people you are so worried about to disregard what BSA tells them? The first scenario on the tape discusses a boy that reportedly has bruises and refuses to talk with his leader. The tape suggests that this information be passed along to the SE. You consider yourself better educated and equipped to handle these situations than some professional scouter but do you feel those new forum members are equally educated? You will find this post to be a personal attack because it suits you. I am offended by your telling others that your method of handling a possible YP issue is an acceptable response in direct opposition to what BSA says. Its not your responsibility to investigate. Comes right from the tape. If your going to take positions that are directly contrary to BSA policy please do it in a less condescending manner. Many of us bend or disregard the written rule but don't chastize those who follow the rules. LongHaul

I agree but when we are required to take and offer YP protection over and over and are bombarded with warnings about physical, mental, neglect, sexual and ethical abuse how are we to tell the difference. What is the difference between a Medication Holiday and withholding medication prescribed by a doctor? Are we being asked to watch for signs then ignore them? LongHaul

Ekmiranda posted; This could also be a cry for help but no one is hearing it!!!!! In reference to the missing scout incident. In an unrelated thread,ustbeeowl brought up a concern about video game addiction. Where does our responsibility, 1. to the scout and 2. with regard to YP, end? Or should I ask how far does it extend? When we feel in our heart and mind something is just not right is passing the info on to a professional scouter enough? Provided of course that we do not suspect criminal intent or activity? LongHaul

While some are looking for explanations at the troop level, I wonder what the attitude was of the parents. What I have had to deal with is the Im just a phone call away speech from the parents. We had a boy walk out of camp to use a public phone to call home. I happened late in the evening and everyone thought the boy was in his sack. He had in fact walked about a mile to the public phone, called home and Dad had come to pick him up. We became aware of the problem when the boys tent mate went to the tent and found it empty. The boy heard us calling and hid until his Dad arrived about 30 minutes later. No ADD no YP issues just a kid with no regard for rules he does not see as important. Dad never called any of the leaders cell phones to speak with us before hopping in his car and if the boy didnt have gear in his tent Im not sure he would have come to the site to tell us he was taking his son home. This boy was First Class and had been to Summer camp twice. This happened on a week end campout close to home. LongHaul

EagleInKY brought up a prime example of what I was talking about. As a YP presenter for my district I fully agree that the adult in this case acted foolishly but was it a violation of the rule? Lets look at the rule first, what it says is that you must be in view of other adults and youth. Was this adult in view of other adults and youth as he walked back to the site? Was this adult in view of other adults and youth after he arrived at the site, providing the adult did not enter a secluded area with the boy? Just how close do the other adults and youth have to be? Yes we all have our own interpretations but what does the rule actually say and demand? You are at an American Football stadium for the purpose of having football match. All the adults other than you are acting as field officials and all the boys save one is on the field of play. You are seated behind one of the goal posts talking to this youth when the play on the field heads for the other goal line. At what point do you become out of view of other adults and youth? As I said I tell leaders to never get in this type of position in the first place but it happens. What I have been told by my former SE follows along with what the SE in the missing scout case said. I was told that the rule meant not to arrange to be secluded from other people while with a youth. No 1 on 1 in a car, private meetings, on an outing where you would not expect other people to be. If someone passing by the camp site would have been able to see the leader and the scout the its not 1 on 1. Im in full view even when no one is there to view. Risky? YES! Smart ? NO! in keeping with the rules? By the way I dont mention the explanation I got from the SE when doing YP. No 1 on 1 means no 1 on 1. If you cant see other people and HEAR other people, if they are not seeing you and cant hear you if they choose to then youre setting yourself up for problems. LongHaul

Internet and cell phones are great as long as you have a cell tower near by and a charged battery. Morse Code may be of little use but semaphore still holds up. We lost stalking and tracking. I doubt any of our boys today, with the exception of farm children or avid hunters would know how to clean a kill for cooking. Fire by friction isnt covered in the Handbook. With all the attention the reality shows get and the interest in the Survivor type shows may be its time to bring some of the old things back. LongHaul