Significant Cultural Changes are Coming Soon

[ParkMan]

While I'm normally one to postulate what might be coming, I have a hunch that now is a difficult time in which to predict the future.

No touch policies just seem to make common sense to me at this point - regardless of lawsuits, insurance, or the like.  Yes, it will make teaching a very small number of things more difficult - but it's not that big a deal.  In 2020, I think we all understand personal space and can recognize not to invade it.  And yes - there will always be common sense exceptions such as a parent touching their child.

As for Scouting looking drastically different.  Perhaps at the council/national level yes.  But not at a unit level.  I suspect that it will look pretty similar.  Sure professionals may go and camps may close - but those are not that bit an impact to most unit programs.

[tnmule20]

5 hours ago, Cburkhardt said:

The girls in our Troop despise the braggarts on Eagle.  They are taking it slow and doing everything correctly.  I can’t but help thinking some of this is encouraged by media looking at king for “The first X” stories.

Very admirable of the Scouts in your Troop.

[Eagle94-A1]

3 hours ago, ParkMan said:

No touch policies just seem to make common sense to me at this point - regardless of lawsuits, insurance, or the like.  Yes, it will make teaching a very small number of things more difficult - but it's not that big a deal. 

Depends upon the skills being taught. First aid will be a big deal. Lifesaving and BSA Lifeguard will be major deal as you will not be able to do several of the requirements, and if they do not know those skills, it could kill them.

 

[ParkMan]

1 hour ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Depends upon the skills being taught. First aid will be a big deal. Lifesaving and BSA Lifeguard will be major deal as you will not be able to do several of the requirements, and if they do not know those skills, it could kill them.

 

I would simply offer that there will always be reasons to not do anything.  Or perhaps in the case of certain badges a higher level of supervision is required.  In either event, it doesn't seem an insurmountable evolution of how youth and adults relate to each other.  

I think of these situations something like a mixed gender environment.  As an adult male, I would be exceedingly hesitant to ever put hands on an a female.  Not so much because of lawsuits or allegations- but simply out of respect for personal boundries.  I would look for alternative approaches to demonstrate techniques or skills that historically would have been done through physical contact.  I don't think this is a big deal in the slightest and have considered things like this all my adult life.

In fact, as a Scouters I cannot remember ever physically touching a scout.  It's not something I've avoided- I just really cannot remember ever having a reason to do so.

  

[David CO]

5 hours ago, ParkMan said:

No touch policies just seem to make common sense to me at this point - regardless of lawsuits, insurance, or the like. 

I think this is the point.  Those who support a no-touch policy would probably do so regardless of the current problems.  It has nothing to do with the lawsuits.  

I don't think people should be taking unfair advantage of the bankruptcy in order to promote their social agendas.  If there are to be culture changes, these changes should be discussed on their own merits.  

I have spent 35 years trying to end this silly rivalry between scouting and athletics.  The athletes should not be putting down the scouts as nerds, wimps, etc..  I am concerned that a no-touch policy in scouting would make this more difficult to do.  It would add one more excuse for athletes to mock the scouts.

[David CO]

49 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

 

In fact, as a Scouters I cannot remember ever physically touching a scout.  It's not something I've avoided- I just really cannot remember ever having a reason to do so.

  

I can't remember a scouting activity where I haven't touched a scout.  

[yknot]

8 minutes ago, David CO said:

I think this is the point.  Those who support a no-touch policy would probably do so regardless of the current problems.  It has nothing to do with the lawsuits.  

I don't think people should be taking unfair advantage of the bankruptcy in order to promote their social agendas.  If there are to be culture changes, these changes should be discussed on their own merits.  

I have spent 35 years trying to end this silly rivalry between scouting and athletics.  The athletes should not be putting down the scouts as nerds, wimps, etc..  I am concerned that a no-touch policy in scouting would make this more difficult to do.  It would add one more excuse for athletes to mock the scouts.

I agree. No touch policies don't solve anything if you still have predators in your midst. Think Jurassic Park think the Malcolm character think his version of chaos theory. Bad actors will always find a way to do what comes naturally to them. Rather than no touch it ought to be no tolerance for folks that don't follow the rules. There are still so many scouters that despite all the scandals and bad press and YPT training and exhortations who still do questionable things or flaunt YPT. These folks need to be called out. If they don't stop, they need to go. Even if completely blameless in intention, they make it easier for predators to hide among them. 

I don't agree about your version of rivalry. What I have seen are anti athletic factions in scouting -- which are vocal and virulent -- put down sports. I have of course also seen sports factions -- which are vocal and virulent --  put down scouts. It goes both ways. The best solution is for parents who are coaches to also be leaders and vice versa. We've got a couple units where this is the case and it is like the lion laying down with the lamb -- it's a beautiful thing. 
 

[David CO]

17 minutes ago, yknot said:

 

I don't agree about your version of rivalry. What I have seen are anti athletic factions in scouting -- which are vocal and virulent -- put down sports. I have of course also seen sports factions -- which are vocal and virulent --  put down scouts. It goes both ways. The best solution is for parents who are coaches to also be leaders and vice versa. We've got a couple units where this is the case and it is like the lion laying down with the lamb -- it's a beautiful thing. 
 

Sorry, I can't see where we disagree.

This is exactly why my CO put scouting under the authority of the athletic director.  We wanted to have equal treatment/policies for athletes and scouts.  We didn't want the boys to see themselves as rivals.

BSA makes this very difficult to do by instituting policies and practices that widen the gap between athletes and scouts.  I wish they would stop and think about this before they act.

[David CO]

5 hours ago, yknot said:

Rather than no touch it ought to be no tolerance for folks that don't follow the rules. There are still so many scouters that despite all the scandals and bad press and YPT training and exhortations who still do questionable things or flaunt YPT. These folks need to be called out. If they don't stop, they need to go. Even if completely blameless in intention, they make it easier for predators to hide among them. 

I'm not a big fan of YP.  YP a lot like an appropriations bill.  The original bill may have sounded like a good idea, but by the time it comes up for a vote, it has so many unrelated add-ons that I can only agree with 50% of the final legislation.

BSA cynically uses YP to get a lot of stuff that doesn't belong with YP.  They can't resist using YP to further their social agenda.  

[Cburkhardt]

Reactions to Several Posts on Youth Protection.  

Post:  

“No touch policies don't solve anything if you still have predators in your midst.”

 

Response:  A no touch policy would allow for immediate identification of an abuser, who would disobey the policy and immediately be outed.  A no touch policy would almost certainly provide an immediate end to any hidden ongoing abuse.  It could even stop an ongoing horror.

 Post: 

“BSA makes this very difficult to do by instituting policies and practices that widen the gap between athletes and scouts.”

 

…. And …

 

“I have spent 35 years trying to end this silly rivalry between scouting and athletics.  The athletes should not be putting down the scouts as nerds, wimps, etc..  I am concerned that a no-touch policy in scouting would make this more difficult to do.  It would add one more excuse for athletes to mock the scouts.”

 

Response:  No child will be attracted to Scouts because its adult leaders generously touch them.  No child will depart Scouting because their adult leaders do not generously touch them.  Parents of Scouts do not wish the adult leaders to touch their Scouts as is they were athletic coaches.  Because of the bankruptcy and huge number of claims filed, Parents of Scouts are properly suspicious of adult leaders who generously touch their children.

 Post: 

“BSA cynically uses YP to get a lot of stuff that doesn't belong with YP.  They can't resist using YP to further their social agenda.”

 

Response:  Youth Protection Training is a direct response to the obvious presence of child abuse in Scouting’s past and perhaps a bit in the present.  If instituting youth protection fulfills some person’s political or social agenda, it is not relevant.  Youth protection is a necessary and morally required action for the BSA to take because it stops harm and protects children.  If a house is burning down and people need rescuing, I want the firefighter to rescue the people.  If his motivation to do so is to get a financial bonus or heroism medal, it is irrelevant.  Scouting is burning down and we need a most rigorous implementation of youth protection and other cultural changes if it is to survive as a movement.

Post:  

“Rather than no touch it ought to be no tolerance for folks that don't follow the rules. There are still so many scouters that despite all the scandals and bad press and YPT training and exhortations who still do questionable things or flaunt YPT. These folks need to be called out. If they don't stop, they need to go. Even if completely blameless in intention, they make it easier for predators to hide among them.”

 

Response:  I do not think there will actually be a “no touch” policy.  Your view is a solid way to approach things.  We need strict implementation and no tolerance.  Any flexibility offered to an adult leader to continuously violate the policies will attract people who will abuse our Scouts.  Adult leaders who demonstrate refusal to follow the youth protection policies should be banned from Scouting-type organizations.  As an aside, I am a Scoutmaster of a large girl Troop in an urban area and I frequently mix with the other Scout leaders in our city.  There is no open flaunting or questionable practices in evidence in our city/BSA district.  I cannot speak for what may have happened in the past, but things certainly are being operated in a YPT-compliant manner today.  If it is otherwise in your area, you should urge a change in leadership.  I strongly urge you to report any violations you are aware of directly to law enforcement (legally required if an instance of actual abuse) and to the chartered organization executive officer and Scout Executive (if a failure to follow youth protection policy of the BSA or CO).  Scouting leaders are mandatory reporters of instances of abuse in almost every legal jurisdiction.

[Cburkhardt]

Volunteer District Executives?

Some councils will greatly downsize their professional staffs -- many already have.  A broadly-held opinion that emerged from posts this spring was a preference that unit-serving executives be prioritized.  My unscientific observation is that preservation of DE functions has in fact been a priority as councils have adjusted their staffs, but we can reasonably assume there will be fewer DEs who will be asked to cover more units.  I think there are volunteers who would be willing to serve in a new role as unpaid (perhaps expense-reimbursed) executives.  Such roles could be right-sized depending on volunteer time availability.  Interested retirees might give a couple of days each week.  The management side of Scouting could and should shift more to volunteer engagement.  I think there would be a lot of long-time BSA volunteers willing to consider a significant cultural change like this.

[ParkMan]

13 minutes ago, Cburkhardt said:

Volunteer District Executives?

Some councils will greatly downsize their professional staffs -- many already have.  A broadly-held opinion that emerged from posts this spring was a preference that unit-serving executives be prioritized.  My unscientific observation is that preservation of DE functions has in fact been a priority as councils have adjusted their staffs, but we can reasonably assume there will be fewer DEs who will be asked to cover more units.  I think there are volunteers who would be willing to serve in a new role as unpaid (perhaps expense-reimbursed) executives.  Such roles could be right-sized depending on volunteer time availability.  Interested retirees might give a couple of days each week.  The management side of Scouting could and should shift more to volunteer engagement.  I think there would be a lot of long-time BSA volunteers willing to consider a significant cultural change like this.

We're quickly approaching the point where we have to start asking - what is the true value add of the DE role?  If we have 1 DE per 100 units, what does that person do?  If we have volunteer DEs with only a fraction the bandwidth, what essential services do they provide that a District Chair or District Commissioner (and their teams) do not?

[Cburkhardt]

19 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

We're quickly approaching the point where we have to start asking - what is the true value add of the DE role?

I was hoping for someone to say this.  It really cuts to the core of the suggestion made by a preponderance of commenters on this site that volunteers re-take responsibility at the local level for Scouting. 

My Father was our District Membership Chair when I was a Scout.  His group of three people did everything to form new units and help the commissioners maintain the ones having difficulty.  The performance of that work migrated to professionals over the last 40 years.  Have to say, I think my Dad did a better job of that particular work than even the best DEs I have known.  So you have hit it on the head.  

The follow-up is to identify those functions that can only be done well by a full-time executive employee.  Following is a DE job description I just snatched from the web.  Is there anything in it that can't be provided by volunteers?  To focus the discussion, let's concentrate for the time only on the DE position.

Principal Responsibilities

1. Work with a volunteer board of directors and other community and business leaders to identify, recruit, train, guide, and inspire them to become involved in youth programs.
2. Achieve progress towards specific goals and objectives which include: program development through collaborative relationships, volunteer recruitment and training, fundraising, membership recruitment and retention.
3. Be responsible for extending programs to religious, civic, fraternal, educational, and other community-based organizations through volunteers.
4. Secure adequate financial support for programs in assigned area. Achieve net income and participation objectives for assigned camps and activities.
5. Recruit leadership for finance campaign efforts to meet the financial needs of the organization.
6. Ensure that all program sites are served through volunteers, regular leader meetings, training events and activities.
7. Collaborate with adult volunteers and oversee achievement of training for their respective role.
8. Be a good role model and recognize the importance of working relationships with other professionals and volunteers. The executive must have communication skills and be able to explain the program’s goals and objectives to the public.
9. Provide quality service through timely communication, regular meetings, training events and activities.
10. Have a willingness and ability to devote long and irregular hours to achieve council and district objectives.

Desired Skills

• Non-profit, fundraising or sales experience is a plus.
• Must be comfortable with public speaking and interacting with diverse audiences. Excellent people skills, enthusiastic, punctual, responsible and creative.
• Self-motivated individual with solid time management skills and strong organizational skills in management, budgeting, and planning.
• Committed to personal and professional productivity, while maintaining high ethical and professional working standards.

Minimum Qualifications

• Must be willing to accept and meet the Boy Scout of America’s leadership and membership standards and subscribe to the Scout Oath and Law.
• Bachelor's degree from an accredited college or university (transcript with the date degree conferred stated is required for employment).
• Attained 21 years of age or older unless prohibited by any applicable law.
• Ability to work varied hours when necessary, evening activities and weekend work is frequently required to achieve positive objectives.
• Ability to travel for training at least once a year for one to two weeks.
• A Scouting background is helpful but not required for employment.
• Offers for employment are subject to criminal, reference and motor vehicle background checks.

  

[qwazse]

2 hours ago, Cburkhardt said:

... Response:  A no touch policy would allow for immediate identification of an abuser, who would disobey the policy and immediately be outed.  A no touch policy would almost certainly provide an immediate end to any hidden ongoing abuse.  It could even stop an ongoing horror. ...

A second ecological fallacy in the same thread!!!!

With such a policy, every Mediterranean personality would be removed from scouting. Meanwhile, very good predators would bide their time, culling vulnerable youth with false verbal assurances that he/she is on the youth's side when nobody else is, and nobody else needs to know, and if they did they wouldn't believe him/her anyway, etc .... Worse, since kids might not open up to anyone else unless they've communicated via an occasional hug head pat or pat on the back -- the ongoing horror might even be better hidden.

We need to constantly remind ourselves that it's a very big country, and one group might be more formal than others. But another group might read that as a signal of profound mistrust.

A better policy: do what you were brought up to do in front of your current peers ... have them correct you if it doesn't fit the prevailing local culture. (I heard story after story of folks in my community doing this for my grandparents and recently arrived cousins.)

And yes, teaching youth to be resilient and negotiate these troubled waters is part of the program. They, not we, are on front line. They need their defenses strengthened. We need to learn how to do that. This will be a continuing challenge as our culture is rapidly shifting. In some ways those shifts are occurring faster than the ability to properly analyze them.

[Cburkhardt]

While “don’t touch” is unlikely to be adopted, it would have the impacts I have stated.  Parents have lost trust in our practice of YP self-regulation by adult leaders because despite the well-intended approach you have well explained, molestations regularly occurred.  We are no longer trusted to understand and implement the nuanced system you suggest.  There are many rational arguments that we really don’t have to change our culture and we can somehow get a better outcome.  I do not believe that to be true.