qwazse

I calculated it based on a cumulative membership number as of 2010 and the results of an historic solicitation for claimants for incidents since the start of scouting up to and including last year. Furthermore, I am not treating 99% effectiveness as "hard", but as a likely upper limit with the suspicion that BSA's strategies might actually be 90% effective, maybe lower. If we think a "fairer" number can be reached by only considering 1950 forward, let's produce it. By what percent should we reduce the denominator? By what percent the numerator (if anyone charted the dates of the claimed incidents chronologically)? This kind of perspective, for me, has nothing to do with money. My grandchild and your children will have to navigate a 21st century landscape of risks. Let's give them a map.

@johnsch322, it's hard to say if and how anyone will know. These things are most successfully tracked in nations with a centralized health system. And, that is simply not us.

There should not be a punishment for crime reduction. No dignity is gained by exacting pounds of flesh from those who reduce crime. On the other hand BSA thought it was more than 99% effective. That's the arrogance I described some months ago. I guess the question then hinges on what the punishment for arrogance should be. And the current answer is long, protracted negotiations. As I've always stated, scouting will happen absent BSA. There is enough literature and media for boys and girls to launch out and do it on their own. Unfortunately, there is also enough literature for people of ill-will to learn how to infiltrate such youth. The 21st century has the potential to be quite violent on our nation's youth. @yknot yeah sure, "Figures lie and lairs figure." But you have to always ask how they've done it. I have not made any attempt to lower the .07% figure to account for suspected false claims. I have not attempted to pick the largest possible denominator. Nor have I made an attempt to cite any literature that came up with extreme background rates. I haven't use Australia's rates in place of America. I've not tried to narrow the population more narrowly than what is BSA's target demographic. If you think I haven't done good enough. That's fine. Do better. Arguing that we can't know the rates isn't good enough. By that logic, one could claim that the background rate is 21%, and BSA 99.6% effective. But, one would be saying it without foundation. I am just trying to provide a foundation ... one that might help improve discernment. How could this help? Let's say in the next 50 years BSA continues and it turns out that 10,000 victims come forward. They might claim some it is due to some improved YP. That they are 5 times better. But, if over the next 5 decades their cumulative youth membership only reaches 500,000, their rate would have increased threefold.

There are several reasons: As I've mentioned before, the survivors who've come forward to me have all been victimized outside of scouting. Same for the predators who I've had the misfortune of meeting. This is the more typical American experience. I think the simplest reason for this is that YPT is not applied across all youth activities. Those of us who've seen our youth march off to sports or church camps should know that this is true. Many attribute BSA's motive as purely fiduciary -- that they are just trying to keep their jobs. But they may also see a loss of their assets as denying youth an opportunity to be 10 to 100x less likely to be victimized. You and others have cited raw numbers of claims as if it is some sort of justification that demands retribution. I am merely putting it in a public health perspective. Comparing rates ... that's what we do. It's how we know that Sars-Cov-2 is worse than Ebola. There are obvious open questions: The .07%, although discovered using an unprecedented media campaign, may still be an underestimate. Likewise, the population percentages might be an underestimate because in most studies, there was no motivation to answer in the affirmative. You pointed out that even under the most confidential of conditions, participants in these surveys may under-report and even suppress memories. A public health perspective does not always translate into criminology. It certainly is far removed from civil litigation. Scouts at risk vary as a function of age, sex and cohort. So, choice of denominator is extremely complicated. There is ongoing independent analysis of BSA's IVF to try to parameterize that. I'm not expecting a paper anytime soon. Sociology is hard. I have not attempted to sway the .07%-ers one way or the other. But I do think that knocking something that is 90% to 99% effective because it is not 100% effective does not put one on a moral high ground. Leverage in negotiation is not moral high ground. My motivation? I want kids to be safer. Show me a strategy that makes them safer and I'll favor it.

K. I'll reply there!

You are making gross assumptions about the rest of the world’s cultural norms. But let’s run with that. Supposing that males were forced into some form of culturally normalized ritual of genital manipulation by adults. That would not be reported as abuse. The numbers reported from a given country are unwanted and unacceptable advances. So those countries will report lower rates where our fairly conservative but vocal would pull it up. But here’s a meta-analysis that breaks it down by country and sex. From the USA they acquired data from 57 studies with 99,000 males surveyed and found the same rate: Stoltenborgh, M., Van Ijzendoorn, M. H., Euser, E. M., & Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J. (2011). A global perspective on child sexual abuse: Meta-analysis of prevalence around the world. Child maltreatment, 16(2), 79-101. I am really trying to find a study that shows the rate of child sexual abuse in general US population to be lower than 5%. So far, none.

You’re welcome. I included the other reference for those who’d prefer meta-analysis. In that:paper the prevalence among males was 8%. That’s consistent with other work that combined numerous studies. I understand the perception that meta-analysis gives more precise estimates, but they, too, may be “collating responses from separately conducted studies.” I’ve consulted on several, and they often don’t shed more light than the most recent one or two studies. That’s usually because the peer review process puts increasing demands that authors present data that are an improvement over what’s come before. So far, I haven’t found a paper that puts the overall rate lower than 5% of US males. I’m sorry to say that the litigious environment around social crimes like this will make it highly unlikely that we’ll have a finely tuned survey of a random sample in the US any time soon. A study like that is more likely to succeed in countries where institutions don’t face a threat of extinction if they allow investigators in, and where sexual assault victims feel less stigma and isolation if they report. But, one can’t simply sweep the published background rate aside and claim that BSA has no reason to think it provides an environment with reduced risk of sexual assault. Boys are safer in scouting. They might be arrogant. But not without reason.

For those who want to look into more robust (but certainly not void of limitations) analysis: Global: Barth, J., Bermetz, L., Heim, E., Trelle, S., & Tonia, T. (2013). The current prevalence of child sexual abuse worldwide: a systematic review and meta-analysis. International journal of public health, 58(3), 469-483. National: Finkelhor, D., Shattuck, A., Turner, H. A., & Hamby, S. L. (2014). The lifetime prevalence of child sexual abuse and sexual assault assessed in late adolescence. Journal of Adolescent Health, 55(3), 329-333. I chose a 7% "background rate" based on older research that extrapolated to age 18 because that was specific to boys through adolescence. That rate is within the probable rate reported by 17 year olds in Finkelhor et al. Note: BSA also attempted to track predators of female youth, e.g. Explorers. So the risk to females has been a concern. Does the TCC have a breakdown of victims by sex? I might have a tally of female youth participants somewhere for us to get a handle on this. This is not to say that the YP program itself has made scouting "100x safer" than background. Boys at risk due to poverty or some other unstable family situation might never enroll. Furthermore, the percent of claimants joining a class is not the same as respondents in the affirmative in a broad-based survey. It's not clear at all which one would yield a more accurate rate.

This is what I mentioned earlier about "demonizing" the other side. Never be so sure. My first YPT training was in camp was by a former camp director and involved a run-down of recent incidents. The instructor was as open as the law would allow him. If, legally, a survivor could give us a walk-through, he/she would have been welcomed -- and supported as best we amateurs could. A subsequent video training involved interviews with survivors. So, there is evidence that BSA is in favor engaging survivors in practical ways would empower future scouters to create an environment that reduces risk even more than the current 100-fold below what children face elsewhere. But, as we see above ... this kind of restorative justice isn't for everyone. If someone couldn't face returning to their old camp, would they be able to do so at another camp? Could a camp vet survivors? What if some have since become perpetrators? If the camp is long gone, could a willing survivor be welcome to visit a pack/troop and instruct its volunteers? What kind of standing committee would we need to assist victims, camps, and units in coordinating all of these issues? And, would it be possible to protect both sides from reprisals? I think it is a solution that a number of folks on both sides would welcome. But, it might cost more to make it work than any current dollar settlement.

@johnsch322, welcome to the forums. Yes BSA is fighting. That’s generally what happens when someone demands more money than someone else is willing to give. It’s hard giving an opponent any benefit of the doubt. But, BSA May see the plan as forcing it to “continue” by making costs prohibitive to our most vulnerable youth, making safe camps too remote for them to attend, leading to upright volunteers unwilling to risk contributing to our nation’s youth programs. It may fear that as result, more youth will be isolated in high risk environments where the risk of abuse is far higher than 1%. From one perspective they BSA is acting like modern land barons. From another perspective TCC seems reckless. The demonization cuts both ways.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the fee increases. I also would not be surprised if the diminishing returns curb increases for a while.

Splitting hairs ... but the CO owns the assets and has an obligation to use them for the purposes of scouting in their vicinity. That obligation trickles down to the unit committee. So, if the CO wanted the cash to guild their roof that would be a problem. This is not that. In this case, it’s fairly straightforward. The committee appointed by the CO — most likely formed from the parents staying in the pack — get to the say in how to use the $ in the pack treasury.

I’m not sure what’s in it for BSA. Will the dollar amount of the settlement be lowered if they provide a plan?

I divided 84K by 110M and got 0.07%. It’s imprecise for many obvious reasons, not the least of which being false claims on one hand and victims who would not be party to the TCC on the other. It also may be unfair to compare that to the 9.6% estimate. The hours a youth would spend in school vs. an extracurricular would be a factor. That said, my boots-on-the-ground experience is with victims abused by family, peers, and clergy. Outside of these forums, I’ve never met someone who was victimized by a scouter. But, if using rough calculations similar to those in fighting contagion, BSA’s abuse-prevention strategy over the past century seems to have been 99% effective.

Have a really nice B&G, pay for summer camp, and be done with it.

First, we aren't all that anonymous. I've had people, after meeting me IRL, say "Hey, You're Qwazse!" Some of us meet IRL if we're passing through one another's council or are at Jambo. There are lot's of reasons for using a handle. For me, first and foremost, I want people who may know me to feel free to type their mind online. It prepares me for meeting people in the trenches. But, if someone spills details that are truly confidential, their identity will soon follow. I have no reason to doubt people here are reporting things from the way they see it themselves. BSA, TCC, or any other three-lettered entity would not waste time trying to sway readers here. The BSA pro's who do report here, seem to be doing so out of a desire to spare us or our scouts trauma. Second, recruitment will get harder as the cost of registration increases. As camps are sold, it gets even harder. A scout whose summer camp moves more than two hours away is less likely to attend. A potential CO is less likely to start a new unit. Those of us who love sinking $ into hiking and camping and watching boys grow strong and good in the span of 7 years will continue to do so. We will just have to figure out the plan B to make it happen.

Are you kidding me? Gravity, angular momentum, and slip knots! Yo-yo = scouting + STEM encapsulated in a toy.

Nor is failing to acknowledge the success in reducing rates of sexual abuse of minors ... Nor is failing to show that there was an alternative that has succeed in reducing those rates by another order of magnitude ... Nor is showing how this will be a net benefit to youth going forward ... Proposing that 0.07% of all scouts ever and their attorneys are worthy of orders of magnitude more than a billion dollars by virtue of their victimization ... Proposing further, without evidence, that nobody will be put at increased risk in the process. That victims somehow better know what to do with those resources because, well, at least they aren't scout execs ... Maybe that is kind in somebody's neck of the woods. But that sentiment is far from universal.

Is it really? Or is it about scout leaders who observe a victimization rate of 0.07% and look anywhere else besides BSA ... that rate is 100 fold? Could it be that BSA believes that if it is liquidated -- followed by the targeting of every organization that hosts youth, and school districts, and even the institution of family itself -- that the next five decades will be one of even greater sexual predation on our youth?

Not being in the pack, I don’t have a strong opinion. But I could tell that the curriculum was getting bloated and it was time to prune.

File: no good deed goes unpunished.

I hope some sponsors will come forward — especially among Americans who immigrated from Georgia. I can certainly imagine scouts putting this on their agendas.

“Scouting” is all that. No pretending. It’s just doing that without Scouts BSA. How many adults does it take to grab a tarp go into some woods and spend the evening? To walk to the nearest museum? To visit a municipal building? To do some good in the world. (Answer: it’s a nonnegative number less than 1.) Scouting will continue as long as there are boys, girls, and woods. It just won’t be distributed fairly to all youth. It will have increased safety risks. If National averages are correct, it will be twice to ten times more likely to expose a youth to sexual and physical abuse as youth in BSA. But, it will continue ... with or without the BSA.

You mean http://www.usscouts.org/databases/camp/ocd.cgi The TCC is probably using that for their machinations.

Let's be clear about my stumping for the two-week post 2nd dose rule. I am not saying that a scouter needs to be more cautious than he/she was last year. Simply stay the course. Wave #1 was flattened yet some camps, IMHO, closed unnecessarily. The unintended consequence of that was folks traveled further to the few open camp which probably offset risk mitigation. But in general, if you were able to go camping last year, you should be able to do the same this year. Better yet, most of your scouts have their own masks and understand protocol. On the flip side, they will have access to more in-person activity over the next couple of months. Obviously the disease (and subsequent hospitalization and mortality) rates will vary, and that will impact decisions. Still, scoutmaster conferences in the open air remain far less risky than in-person anything else (including ordering that brisket at a really good BBQ). I have never let up on encouraging that sort of thing. Just be aware that there is a real biological clock that has to run before you are 20x less likely to get disease than an unvaccinated person. This should not change your scouts' responsibilities. In fact, he/she might face more social distancing responsibilities no that camps have their game on. And if your troop is generally less active, encourage your youth leaders to touch base with each scout directly in their charge.