clbkbx

I'm going to look at this again, but fairly certain the Bates report is only appropriate for a BSA-only approach. Basically, they said the historical settlement amounts were allocated as percentages to BSA National, LC's, CO's and others. Then they took the BSA National portion as the basis. But the LC's and CO's are being released.

I think if you check out Moral Panic: Changing Concepts of the Child Molester in Modern America by Philip Jenkins and some information from Stephen Robertson (Crimes Against Children is the book but some of that research is incorporated here if you have a library card: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40663407) you will see that there was a period, defined by Jenkins as the "Liberal Era" from 1958-1976, when what you are describing was the norm. It has changed over time more than you might expect including how it was prosecuted/charged (even as it's been a crime right since the founding of the various US states).

Not sure you could find worse examples for a CSA forum.

I know there are many different outcomes. My abuse was in the 90’s and he was arrested while still the SM. I guess I didn’t make an “official report” but as noted, not a word to me or my family. To other abuse victims (or those that would have knowledge): did BSA provide any counseling to you or to your knowledge? I guess to @elitts’s point, for instances after the 80’s.

I hear you on this. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, thank you for sharing some of your story. Every victim’s experience is difficult to read. If it’s not too burdensome to facilitate this conversation, I find your perspective is very valuable.

As I noted above, no one in BSA ever reached out to me. Here’s some more context: it was the late 1990’s (hope that doesn’t get counted as “old timer”!), my abuser was arrested (bc my family and I reported it to the police) so it was publicly known, I was in Scouts from Tiger through 18 yrs old, Eagle/Vigil/youth leadership positions so I knew/interacted with a lot of adults (SE on down). I never heard they did any reimbursement until recently (my broke college self could have used it more than now). That said, I’ve been considering it for my more recent during-bankruptcy therapy but haven’t… has anyone on here done that?

Sure, individual outcomes vary. That’s a lot different than, for example, what @johnsch322 noted about different outcomes based on reporting. National BSA was the correct entity to be aggregating (which they did) and analyzing (which it sure seems they didn’t) this information. I’ve made this comment before: that the last vote mainly changed YPT is outrageous. (I do hope the Neutral path helps some victims.) It shows me that BSA… having entered bankruptcy to address their past failures around CSA… are still prioritizing their org instead of youth. It’s embarrassing. The TCC explicitly said it was the reason to vote yes. That seems less like a negotiation and more like a hostage situation (vote for this or else…).

That is very interesting, thanks. I thought that the IV files would be released and there would be more in-depth study but now understand that’s not likely (noting that it seems to make sense why they won’t be fully released). BSA let someone fully review them but I didn’t think the analysis was unbiased. If we know this type of abuse is on-going, there are probably other insights to minimize it (a la your example of reporting to authorities not the org, which does seem to be the better approach and I understand is current practice in BSA).

For sure and I agree we need to keep evolving. I think there’s a difference between the norms you mention and CSA. I’m younger than you but am fairly certain male-male pedophilia was not accepted as part of society. So the everyone-was-covering-up-crimes so it’s fine approach always seems a bit gross to me. Police covering up racial violence at the time thought the violence was ok. What were organizations covering up CSA doing other than protecting their reputation?

Same here within the troop but, as noted, I do believe there was at least one victim before me. My troop was not listed in released IV files. I reached out to a family acquaintance younger than me that was in the same troop and he said there were rumors of someone else after me. I wish that I hadn’t asked… it’s one more thing that I don’t know from a time that I’m still processing. (Thanks again to this forum… and therapists!)

That's right, no one talked to me, either. This was in the early/mid 90's. As far as I know now, my abuser was not in the IV files although I'm fairly certain I was not the only one. I wonder how it will change my perception if I do find out as part of this process that he was. Reading your post about (at least) 11 other suspected victims has hit hard. I'm so sorry, it's hard to fathom.

As I understand it now, an ASM reached out to the SE, concerned that I was being abused. The ASM was told everything was ok (not sure on what basis). I know my parents weren’t contacted because they were/are upset when they found this out.

My best guess analysis linked above. There was a data set after the last vote which included the alleged abuse (so a tier could be determined) and alleged location (so SOL's could be factored in). I'm confident that it's less than fully funded. The rough estimate I made was that it is in the neighborhood of 30% funded (as compared to liabilities) with no additional contributions. As @MYCVAStory noted in a response, there are known changes (my estimate: 10% to administer the fund) and suspected changes (how many people will follow through, fraud, etc.). Re: how many claims will be paid, this analysis estimated about 43,000. We'll see but I think for people not going through the alternate review, somewhere in the 15-20% range if the current plan is approved. That is before any fees for representation. Has anyone else made an estimate?

I hope you find some peace. For me, the start of the bankruptcy and having to address the abuse again was difficult. But, I went back to therapy and found some other people with similar experiences (thanks, all). That has overall been positive.

Agreed! And that’s one of the things I’ve really enjoyed about this forum. You might have made a correct assumption about my politics but I’ll endeavor to not let that be confirmed here. I’m not technically adept enough to quote two posts but to @skeptic, there is a documented partisanship to many media outlets. Sure, in a perfect world there wouldn’t be, but that’s why I thought it was important to note the source… we’re living in a world where provided information is not benign and it’s better to know than not. One of my last responses to one of your posts was about an analysis by one of the only people allowed to review the BSA IV files and which vindicated BSA to a degree. I think that’s really important context.

Ouch… I would also be too embarrassed to link to that partisan source (Jonathan Turley of The Hill). Integrity and ethics are very, very important but some hide behind the veneer of the institution. How does a victim of abuse in the BSA think when they hear trustworthy, loyal… ? I know it makes my stomach turn even as I try to follow the same principles in my life. We need to track ethics and integrity by actions not words. SCOTUS has ideals of non-partisanship but politicians fight for the appointments… so the ideal is laughable. Same for BSA in my mind, better to prove it than say it.

Per the press release, we’re part of an “illustrious list of people who have given noteworthy and extraordinary service to youth.” Gross.

Here’s an extremely over the top hypothetical question: how can anyone be against the Weinstein Organization? They enabled great art to be made and donated a lot of their profits to so many worthy causes! There are always powerful men in society that rape women… it’s just a statistic. One-in-a-million, what’re you going to do? Here’s another: who can be anti-the Cosby Show? They made us laugh, focused on family structures and the lead actor donated a lot of money to charity. About that lead actor, probably the same as it always was in Hollywood… we just know about it because of the media. Guess there are two million people that work in the entertainment industry because we know about the two rapists. Of course many people are anti those things now, which seems reasonable to me, even as they were lauded at the time for their good works and contributions to society. You can’t buy your way to heaven. But that’s not my point, even as it is fun to ridicule deserving entities. The women that were raped were shunned, silenced, not given opportunities in the entertainment industry, hurt, not believed, etc. My point is that it is 100% reasonable for those women to be anti the structure that enabled them being raped and then punished them for it. A little empathy goes a long way. I would also note that criticism and dissent are positive. Maybe you’ll read my post and poke some holes in the logic… but either way I hope it opens you up to why there are people that are anti-BSA.

Not sure if I understand correctly but this reads as you saying there’s no scenario one can be anti-BSA that you would understand. I mean this specific portion of the forum is about kids that were sexually abused within the structure set up by BSA. I can think of several other reasons someone could be anti-BSA that I might not agree with but at least makes sense.

Do you have a reference for this? I can’t seem to find anything online. My current theory is that CSA has not been well researched (not to say there’s not been a lot of effort in some studies) and that that is purposeful.

https://onmyhonormovie.com/experts

Glad we agree on that point, but that's exactly what the report does.

The Warren report relied on the IV files and estimated there were 12,254 victims between 1944 and 2016. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/23/nyregion/boy-scouts-sex-abuse.amp.html That the analysis was based on the provided files is a huge caveat throughout the report. This is the sentence before the claim that the rate was lower in the Boy Scouts: In making these comparisons, it is important to note that the two “prevalence studies” are different in intent and thoroughness and many factors can help explain the different rates of child sexual abuse including social class, family cohesion, victim vulnerability, and varying levels of investigative experience and vigor. So, a lot more caveats. Just in a first pass review, there is no reference to the gender makeup of abusers and victims in the Boy Scouts and how that affects reporting. There are 82,000+ claims in the current bankruptcy. As in the Warren report data, the comparison isn’t direct but I think it’s fair to say the Warren estimates are low. Maybe after the bankruptcy there will be more clarity (given more data) on whether CSA was “less of an issue” in the Boy Scouts. I’m very [insert synonym for skeptical] of some Warren report conclusions.

My recollection is that insurers asked to further investigate some claims earlier in the process but it was not allowed. That act could have other effects but for the insurers it would be difficult to show proof if not allowed to look for evidence.

If helpful: There's also section indicating you "declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing statements are true and correct."