yknot

I am an editor by trade -- or at least by one of them. For many years, I edited peer reviewed medical journals in a variety of fields. It was part of my job, with the help of medical review boards composed of national and international experts in their fields, to assess the validity of research in articles, or the citations used to support a recommended standard of care. With sometimes millions or even billions of dollars at stake, major pharmaceutical companies often employ strategies similar to what BSA did to produce or highlight favorable research or recommendations. These strategies are obvious to anyone working in the field. There is a gray area where reputable researchers, reviewers, and publications often operate as part of the medical publishing system and each person, publication and review board, and sometimes the medical board organization it might represent, has to assess for itself what is acceptable. In this case, though, maybe the best way to describe what happened to BSA and its paid consultant is to say that they veered out of grey areas and stepped directly into fudge. I think it's relevant that BSA doesn't seem to mention this episode itself much post 2019. I believe some future transparency and data reporting is eventually supposed to result as part of the bankruptcy settlement with survivors, and that probably will be the first useful information to emerge from BSA if it ever does see light of day.

We've talked about that document before here. This document was from 2011/2012. In 2019, its paid consultant/author was stating such incorrect things as: "100% of cases over the last 50 years have been reported to law enforcement." That turned into a big, credibility damaging "research" miss and mess that led to an embarrassing Congressional apology, and pretty much discredited it. You can be generous if you like, but that 2011 document was more press release and PR strategy than a serious attempt to contribute anything useful and heartfelt to the public CSA discussion. BSA has never done that. https://michiganscouting.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/BSA-Press-Conference-Prepared-Remarks_04.24.19.pdf

That is a new one I haven't heard before: It's not coaches, then, but lurking predators who scope out kids and swipe them off the field in view of the public, other kids, parents, and ubiquitous surveillance cameras? Interesting. I guess these lurkers don't go after the tuba players very often. I think it's significant that BSA, the youth organization that probably has the most data about child sexual abuse cases over time, and that could produce information useful to scout parents and leaders as well as all other youth organizations regarding incident characteristics, age, gender of victims and perpetrators, setting, type, perpetrator profiles, etc., has never compiled or produced any useful or comprehensive research or reports about it. Many other youth or youth linked organizations have done so on CSA, mental health, safety, etc. Never BSA, the organization that you hope all other youth organizations will emulate.

Well, the parents would be right. The average kid is far safer from sexual abuse in sports than the average kid in scouting. Sexual abuse of children is a society wide problem in any setting where adults have access to kids, but a kid on a soccer field for two hours in public view is far safer than a kid on a campground overnight in a remote location with unrelated adults. Studies like this highlight our problems with CSA but have little bearing on BSA's experiences and track record with it.

Youth sports dwarf scouting. Around 80% of kids ages 5-18 each year are enrolled in sports and prefer their chosen sports to scouts. Scouting currently involves only about 1%-2% of the kid population. That reality means there is no point in comparing scouts to sports, yet a lot of energy and attention in scouting is spent on blaming sports -- as if sports is the reason more kids don't do scouts. There are few kids today who, after a day of near inactivity in school, want to sit around in den or troop meetings for another hour or two of "being good". In an outdoor youth program, leaders shouldn't need to move activities outdoors to make scouting more appealing -- the rank advancement and merit badge activities themselves should be appealing because they are things you can only do while outdoors. At a monthly campout or summer camp, it's not unusual to have kids sitting around campsites doing homework like tasks to complete requirements. It's like having a soccer league where the kids sit on the pitch and study the rules of soccer and talk about soccer and write reports about soccer maybe more than they actually play soccer.

Scouting is tilting at the wrong windmills when it compares itself to youth involvement in sports. Many youth simply find sports more fun than scouting. Some people may be delusional about professional sports careers or scholarships to D1 schools, but for most families, sports is merely a good activity for youth to be involved in during middle and high school careers. Even if they don't make a varsity team in high school, or make the team but spend a lot of time on the bench, they are still spending 4-5 days afterschool practicing, involved in team spirit events, involved in clinics and practices and team social events off season. They also have something equally good to put on their college application. As far as travel, there are elite teams that cost thousands, but there are far more travel teams that are just a way to continue playing if you aren't good enough to make a school team --there are elite travel teams that go around the country in their custom buses, but there are a ton more travel teams that are simply glorified rec level teams. Sometimes parents will overemphasize the sports prestige and goals so as not to offend scout leaders -- it's easier to say they are focusing on sports in hopes of getting a scholarship vs. they really don't like scouting as much. Sports involvement is also portable. It is really easy to play for one team in the spring that serves one need, and another over the summer or in the fall to serve another. There is no easy, real corollary to that in scouting other than maybe combined HA crews for things like Philmont. As far as the unfit, short family, maybe that's why they want to encourage their kid in sports. Unless you are in a unit that does a lot of hiking or high adventuring, scouts seems to be becoming increasingly sedentary and advancement focused.

NAM used 2023 numbers. In March, the 2024 actual membership numbers were posted elsewhere on this forum and they were around 870,000 or 890,000 -- can't remember which. BSA also changed the registration scheme so that anyone signing up after August 2023 would not be prorated but signed up for a 12 month membership so that number likely includes some dropouts that normally would have been cleaned up on December recharters. Renewal notices will be issued for six months after that, so anyone on the roles now is going to stay on the roles as a member for 18 months rolling forward. In a way, it gives further explanation of the move to change the name. Krone said girl membership was 176,000, or nearing 20%, but in reality it is likely already over 20% if live membership is closer to the March numbers.

Once BSA moved to admit girls, it should have changed the name to reflect its dual membership. Once BSA decided to accept girls' membership dollars, and charge girls the same fees that it charges to boys, it had a duty to make sure the general program experiences and opportunities were similar. That's what a well managed, functional organization would do. If it didn't want girls, and it didn't want their membership numbers and their membership dollars, then it would have made sense to retain the old name and the old perspectives and live with that. But that's not what the organization did, and girls are now part of the organization and have been for six years. It is past time for the name to change and for units and patrols to be non gendered. I used to think non gendered units only needed to be an option, but that is still extremely limiting especially when you see some of the recent comments. Girls who are crossing over to a troop and paying the same dollars should have the same opportunity to find a unit as boys do, but right now they don't. I do think that the organization, in its typically dysfunctional way, has completely mismanaged the addition of girls to scouting since its launch in 2018. Its regrettable that it has become such a distraction from other issues that BSA is also mismanaging equally well through poor leadership. A lot of these issues around girls should have been resolved six years ago around the time of their addition, and not now while there are more serious post-bankruptcy issues that BSA, or I guess now SA, needs to be focusing on, like preventing more SA.

I'm guessing it's going to be Boy Scouts of America DBA Scouting America instead of Boy Scouts of America DBA Scouts BSA? It's a mouthful with more syllables. Scouts USA would have made more sense if they were going to change it. Plus, I've family in Canada and South America and have spent time in both places. People there also consider themselves part of the American continents. It's a little in your eye.

Is this the big announcement? Is everyone at the launch getting numbered jars of scout jam?

That's not a universal view. Many consider it proof that scouting's unique problem with men preying on boys was already so well known and documented after only 25 years that it was publicly acknowledged by no less than the son of a President on a national stage. The article is proof of how early the problem was known, how long it was allowed to fester, and how little BSA effectively did about it over the ensuing decades. I've seen this article cited multiple times throughout the bankruptcy process as proof BSA has known it had a unique problem for almost its entire history.

It's hard to get past that sentence. We're not talking about rain or snow here. I've been in a lot of places where people didn't think I belonged and didn't want me there. I persevered and maybe that was character building but it also almost got me killed. I would not subject any youth under my care to such a thing today. Thankfully, we mostly don't have to because most youth organizations have moved beyond such backward ideas. There are plenty of things out there that can build character that don't have anything to do with a person's race, religion, orientation, or gender.

There's nothing stopping people from having these kinds of discussions here or anywhere. But if that's how someone feels about a certain class of kids and it contradicts the policies of the organization they work or volunteer for, they shouldn't be responsible for kids of that class. That's the conventional viewpoint, often reported on in the media, and I'm hardly saying anything as controversial or as pearl clutching as implied. BSA policy for the past six years is that girls are scouts. It's really not about the adults anymore, it's about the scouts.

My views are a little different. I think people pretty much have a right to say whatever they think, wherever they want, and it's better to know what those thoughts are. If those views include thinking a certain class of children doesn't belong in a youth organization they are involved with, then they shouldn't still hold an active role within it. If registered leaders hold these views -- that girls in this case, or gay, minority, or non Christian religious scouts in other cases, shouldn't be in scouting in opposition to BSA policy -- then they should not be adult leaders responsible for these children and should step down. It is preferable for people to be honest about how they feel, because otherwise how does a parent know they are unwisely entrusting their child's safety to someone who doesn't think their child should be there in the first place? Broader society is largely trying to move past the point where you are not welcome because you are Black or Jewish or Muslim or Gay or a Girl. There are organizations you can belong to if you still hold those views, but BSA is no longer one of them. Parents of any of these classes of children in scouting have an expectation that their child is being entrusted to registered adult leaders who support BSA policies.

I'm not sure that's a great example to pick, because when Tigers were added to the program, verbal or physical threats weren't made against those children by other scouts or adult leaders. I don't know why people think it's OK though when it's about girls. Protecting children shouldn't require discussion. It's not censure ship to expect that registered and trained youth leaders in a youth organization protect and support the youth in their care.

Change is indeed painful but we are talking about adult leaders who are responsible for children so there really isn't much leeway to accommodate adult issues. Adults who resent the presence of some of the children they are supposed to be supporting and protecting probably shouldn't be in the organization six years in no matter what other value they bring.

That might have made sense the first year as people adjusted, but it has been six years and girls are nearly fully integrated into scouting. The fact that adult leaders, who are in charge of girls' safety and well being, are still allowed to hold such positions while espousing those views is a Youth Protection failure, not dissent. Keeping struggling units alive isn't an acceptable excuse. If old time leaders haven't worked it out by now to the point where they can accept it and focus on the kids then they shouldn't be responsible for them in scouting. We don't tolerate leaders with out of date views on other safety issues like shooting sports, water sports, or other aspects of youth protection. Girls are actively present in the organization and BSA is now responsible for their inclusion, safety, and protection. There really can't be dissent about their presence among adults who are charged with carrying out those responsibilities.

A lot of public places like museums and larger stores have a family option that is a single private room. Parks as well as town and school playing fields often have single stall porta-johns most months of the year. I've gotten to where I can find them almost anywhere within driving distance in my region although it might be different elsewhere.

Agreed. Also on my list are some of the issues that Michael Johnson raised regarding implementing a youth reporting option and adult ID. A lot of units also need YPT guidance on gender issues. Transparency in incident reporting to parents and prospective parents. Dealing with YP issues presented by emerging technology, like covert recording devices and whatever new things are coming down the pike.

I believe the fee changes have been delayed to May 1, 2024

Ha ha! Pounder is listed for one of the sessions somewhere, I can't remember when or where I saw it in some obscure place. One would think they would be highlighting his presence but maybe we're back to pretending youth protection problems don't exist.

Looks like he is going to be there, then. He wasn't on the program anywhere, lol.

I hope OK to post: I grabbed it from a US Fish and Wildlife Service page. Clear skies tonight will be good for migration, so tomorrow could be interesting depending on where you are.

Horrible account.

Chris was a grown adult and took a real risk doing what he did. He shouldn't have had to do that. I think that's where some of the confusion and frustration is coming from. Whether it's someone like Chris, an adult man trying to bird in Central Park in one of the biggest, most diverse cities in the world, and still encountering problems, or an insecure teenaged female, trans or gay scout just trying to find a unit to camp with... what is really left to discuss at this point? Shouldn't they just be free to do and enjoy what anyone else does?