meeting locations

[ParkMan]

We have to put this into the larger context.

The BSA has these rules because of a reaction to the cases of child abuse in Scouting.  The rules are the BSA's attempt to create a program with as many practical safeguards as they can.  Yes, some of these rules also help in a CYA sense.  More importantly they help create a culture where it's harder for abuse to occur, and if it does to go unnoticed.

When we start looking at these rules as requirements - somewhat like tax code - we're missing the point.  Following BSA rules because it's the BSA is not the point.

Say you've Joe the ASM in your troop.  Joe's a nice guy.  Joe's got a son Tom who seems very nice and well adjusted too.  Do we know if Joe is an abuser?  Do we know if Tom is an abuser?

In the most protective scenario - we apply YPT rules in all scenarios.  If Tom & other kids are friends through Scouts - no sleepovers.  If the other kids know Joe from the troop, then they shouldn't be alone with him without another adult.  If we as other volunteers learn that it happens then we should say something.  Why?  Because you never know who an abuser is.  Further -someone who is serious about abusing kids is not going to make it easy to notice it.  So, if you get a clue - you say something.

In the most "human" scenario - we all YPT rules only in a true Scouting context.  If Tom wants to have his buddies over - great.  If Joe is working on his car in the garage, he shouldn't have to stop when once of Tom's friends come over.  Hey - Joe & Tom are people and so we need to respect that.

What's the right answer... who knows?  My gut tells me that if you know someone through Scouting - follow the rules whenever you can.  If you really have a case where it causes you to stop being a normal parent - then I think you've got to decide what to do there.

 

[David CO]

52 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

If Tom & other kids are friends through Scouts - no sleepovers. 

What if Tom & the other kids were friends before becoming scouts?  What if they have been doing sleepovers since they were toddlers?  Are they now expected to stop doing sleepovers?  

BSA should make it clear what the rules are before people sign up.  If it means that Tom has to stop having sleepovers with his friends, he should be told this before he joins the unit.  It should be clearly stated on the application.  It should be clearly explained at scout night.  Full disclosure.  No surprises.

[yknot]

1 hour ago, ParkMan said:

We have to put this into the larger context.

The BSA has these rules because of a reaction to the cases of child abuse in Scouting.  The rules are the BSA's attempt to create a program with as many practical safeguards as they can.  Yes, some of these rules also help in a CYA sense.  More importantly they help create a culture where it's harder for abuse to occur, and if it does to go unnoticed.

When we start looking at these rules as requirements - somewhat like tax code - we're missing the point.  Following BSA rules because it's the BSA is not the point.

Say you've Joe the ASM in your troop.  Joe's a nice guy.  Joe's got a son Tom who seems very nice and well adjusted too.  Do we know if Joe is an abuser?  Do we know if Tom is an abuser?

In the most protective scenario - we apply YPT rules in all scenarios.  If Tom & other kids are friends through Scouts - no sleepovers.  If the other kids know Joe from the troop, then they shouldn't be alone with him without another adult.  If we as other volunteers learn that it happens then we should say something.  Why?  Because you never know who an abuser is.  Further -someone who is serious about abusing kids is not going to make it easy to notice it.  So, if you get a clue - you say something.

In the most "human" scenario - we all YPT rules only in a true Scouting context.  If Tom wants to have his buddies over - great.  If Joe is working on his car in the garage, he shouldn't have to stop when once of Tom's friends come over.  Hey - Joe & Tom are people and so we need to respect that.

What's the right answer... who knows?  My gut tells me that if you know someone through Scouting - follow the rules whenever you can.  If you really have a case where it causes you to stop being a normal parent - then I think you've got to decide what to do there.

 

I think this is where I wonder if it really is over for scouts. I'm aware, given BSA's use of the term "youth" rather than "scout", that there is an  expectation that scouters follow YPT whenever and wherever they are involved with youth, scouts or not. However, imagine telling a non scout parent that you cannot take a group of kids to a movie or let your son have them over to your house unless another adult is present because you are involved in scouting. The inference is that you are not to be trusted because you are involved in scouting. 

I have taken BSA YPT, and similar training through church, sports, a juvenile diversion program I've worked with, and other youth related organizations. I am very cautious about what I do. The training has also made me very cautious about what I allow my kids to do. All good. However, at some point, you have to use common sense.  But when common sense puts you outside of BSA policy, that's not a comfortable place to be. And since I'm normally a rule follower -- to the point where people generally don't want me around -- I'm not sure I want to be a volunteer anymore and have to choose between following policy to the letter or letting my kid have a normal social life.  

[DuctTape]

I think some of this stems from scouters trying to create loopholes by saying "we won't call it a scouting event" simply as a means to avoid the rules when it clearly was a scouting event.

[David CO]

1 hour ago, DuctTape said:

I think some of this stems from scouters trying to create loopholes by saying "we won't call it a scouting event" simply as a means to avoid the rules when it clearly was a scouting event.

I think you're right.  It's like calling dodgeball "avoid-a-sphere" and claiming it's a different game.

I have no doubt that there have been sex offenders who have used scouting to make contact with vulnerable youths, and then arranged to meet them in a less safe (non-scouting) environment.  I don't deny that this has been a problem.  This is a classic strategy for pedophiles.

As much as we want to prevent predatory relationships forming in scout units, we can't just ignore the fact that many scouts and scouting volunteers have pre-existing relationships (like membership in the Chartered Organization) that they are unwilling to give up in order to participate in scouting.  We need to find a way of recognizing these pre-existing relationships without creating loopholes for negligence or abuse.

 

 

 

 

[ParkMan]

3 hours ago, yknot said:

I think this is where I wonder if it really is over for scouts. I'm aware, given BSA's use of the term "youth" rather than "scout", that there is an  expectation that scouters follow YPT whenever and wherever they are involved with youth, scouts or not. However, imagine telling a non scout parent that you cannot take a group of kids to a movie or let your son have them over to your house unless another adult is present because you are involved in scouting. The inference is that you are not to be trusted because you are involved in scouting. 

Respectfully - I think you're reading this backwards.  

YPT isn't about the BSA making statements about you and your trustworthiness.  YPT is a series of rules that describe good, solid practices for keeping kids safe.  The BSA requires that we follow them at a Scouting event.  The BSA is telling us that we really ought to be taking these same precautions outside of Scouting too.

I wouldn't look at them as rules you have to follow because you are a Scouter.  Instead because you are a Scouter, you are more aware of the issues surrounding child abuse.  Because of that you know where to take precautions.  Because you know more about how abuse happens, you should want to set the example for other adult leaders.  It's not about you abusing kids.  It's about having a culture in your unit where it's difficult for abuse to happen and go unnoticed.

I'm a Scouter and have been for a decade.  My daughter still has slumber parties.  I still take my son's friends home after they hang out at our house.  But, I'm also going to be more aware of how I interact with kids.

[walk in the woods]

8 hours ago, ParkMan said:

The BSA requires that we follow them at a Scouting event.  The BSA is telling us that we really ought to be taking these same precautions outside of Scouting too.

No the BSA is talking out of both sides of their mouth, to quote the FAQ referenced in the G2SS:

Quote

Q. The Barriers to Abuse states “One-on-one contact between adult leaders and youth members is prohibited both inside and outside of Scouting.” What does ‘inside and outside of Scouting’ mean?

A. The BSA has adopted its youth protection policies for the safety and well-being of its members. These policies primarily protect youth members; however, they also serve to protect adult leaders. All parents and caregivers should understand that our leaders are to abide by these safeguards. Registered leaders must follow these guidelines with all Scouting youth outside of Scouting activities. There are careers that may require one-on-one contact with youth, however aside from those roles, volunteers must abide by the youth protection policies of the BSA even outside of Scouting activities.

This policy is in place to prevent abuse in and out of Scouting.   Adults should never be alone with youth who are not their children.

Q. Does this mean my son cannot have a sleepover if I am the only adult present?

A. Yes, if any of the children other than your own child is a Scout, we strongly encourage all adults to use the Barriers to Abuse in and out of Scouting.  

You can't say in the first question that "volunteers must abide by the youth protection policies of the BSA even outside of Scouting activities" and then in the VERY NEXT QUESTION say "we strongly encourage all adults to use the Barriers to Abuse in and out of Scouting."

Words have meaning.  The BSA is playing both sides of the issue.  Time for our "leadership" to pick a frickin position.  Or at least hire a proofreader who understands the English language.