BSA vs Other Programs/Society - Youth Protection Comparison

[yknot]

29 minutes ago, qwazse said:

 

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.

 

I've said such studies are useful for general opining, questions, etc., but you are discussing them in ways that position them as fact as you just did above. For example, the .07% figure is not a useful number for comparison. I believe it's an extrapolation you or someone else here came up with by doing some math based on claims and total historical membership. That is not valid because quite a large percentage of that membership is dead. If that came out of a study somewhere, though, please correct me. 

I think it's important to be very careful when discussing the scope of the youth abuse issue in scouting and be careful to be as factual as possible. 
 

 

[qwazse]

23 minutes ago, yknot said:

I've said such studies are useful for general opining, questions, etc., but you are discussing them in ways that position them as fact as you just did above. For example, the .07% figure is not a useful number for comparison. I believe it's an extrapolation you or someone else here came up with by doing some math based on claims and total historical membership. That is not valid because quite a large percentage of that membership is dead. If that came out of a study somewhere, though, please correct me. 

I think it's important to be very careful when discussing the scope of the youth abuse issue in scouting and be careful to be as factual as possible.

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]

57 minutes ago, yknot said:

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.

I think one must be very careful about using the 85k number of claimants as a benchmark as to the number of victims.  I looked at how many claims the LC that I belonged to had claims against it.  I was shocked to find that I was the only one since when I looked at the perversion files and the BSA docs contained therein it says my perpetrator was suspected of abusing 12 to 13 boys.  And that was in my troop. Could the real figure of victims be more in the 850,000 to 1 million range?  Maybe not that high but it does suggest that it just might be way north of 85,000.

[yknot]

 

5 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

I think one must be very careful about using the 85k number of claimants as a benchmark as to the number of victims.  I looked at how many claims the LC that I belonged to had claims against it.  I was shocked to find that I was the only one since when I looked at the perversion files and the BSA docs contained therein it says my perpetrator was suspected of abusing 12 to 13 boys.  And that was in my troop. Could the real figure of victims be more in the 850,000 to 1 million range?  Maybe not that high but it does suggest that it just might be way north of 85,000.

For some reason your post quote says I said that, when I didn't. It was Qwazse. I agree with you. While on the one hand those 84,000 claims may represent the best hard data we have about incidence in scouting, the number is still very problematic. Some claims may indeed be fraudulent but it is also likely that there are many, many more incidents where people did not submit claims. It's partly why I don't understand why this discussion keeps popping up other than in the most general terms because the only thing we can say with honesty about youth abuse in scouting is that it happened a lot.  

[johnsch322]

My bad I was trying to quote Qwazse. 

[ThenNow]

4 minutes ago, yknot said:

For some reason your post quote says I said that, when I didn't. It was Qwazse.

I think he may have just been using your post as a jumping off point to give his comments. He's new and I recall doing that when I started posting. Heck, I still do it!

To blather about something I've said before, it is also misleading to use the 85,000 number alone, since that's claimants and not single incidents of abuse. Other data may be noting incident when here some boys were abused repeatedly Some, tens and tens of times. If 10% of the claimants were abused 5 times each, that adds 42,000 incidents of abuse. 

[ThenNow]

On 5/14/2021 at 1:15 PM, SilverPalm said:

Even if YPT was objectively the finest youth protection program offered anywhere in the world, that doesn't mean it can't be better. There are no downsides to working to improve YPT.  None.

To me, this is effectively the beginning and the end of the discussion. Everything else is suited for academia, sociologists and other such important work. I thought this was all about boots on the ground. Why chase gnats with a tweezers when there is a large fish to fry before you (us?).

On 5/14/2021 at 1:15 PM, SilverPalm said:

This is a really easy, relatively painless ask from the TCC that doesn't involve selling camps or depriving future scouts of so much as a neckerchief slide. Why on earth don't they address it?

Amen. 

-The End

[qwazse]

1 hour ago, johnsch322 said:

I think one must be very careful about using the 85k number of claimants as a benchmark as to the number of victims.  I looked at how many claims the LC that I belonged to had claims against it.  I was shocked to find that I was the only one since when I looked at the perversion files and the BSA docs contained therein it says my perpetrator was suspected of abusing 12 to 13 boys.  And that was in my troop. Could the real figure of victims be more in the 850,000 to 1 million range?  Maybe not that high but it does suggest that it just might be way north of 85,000.

@johnsch322, that's a problem in and of itself if the TCC has only garnered claims from 10% of survivors. If we believe that we must offer survivors a path to being made whole, then there are two conclusions, I think. Neither are satisfactory:

• Many victims do not want to be part of this class. Either they've found healing elsewhere, or don't value their injury on a scale that would demand restitution.
• Victims have remained ignorant of this opportunity. In which case, the the process was not sufficiently thorough.

So, supposing 1 million (male) victims among 110 million boys who have ever been scouts puts BSA at a rate of 0.9%, and comparing that to general population of male youth would put its program at 90% effectiveness. That said, I would argue that the process for soliciting victims here was as thorough as most research studies (which typically don't compensate subjects based on their history of abuse).

So, if this targeted, incentivized, sweep has only captured a fraction of victims, studies of American males in general may be grossly underestimating rates -- and that is a very chilling thought.

[Eagledad]

1 hour ago, ThenNow said:

To me, this is effectively the beginning and the end of the discussion. Everything else is suited for academia, sociologists and other such important work. I thought this was all about boots on the ground. Why chase gnats with a tweezers when there is a large fish to fry before you (us?).

This will be a popular topic as long as the BSA organization is blamed for the abuses.

Barry

[ThenNow]

2 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

as long as the BSA organization is blamed for the abuses.

Here we go again. I'm not blaming them. Again, this is not an ethics class. Love it, hate, stand by indifferent, the court and laws are holding them accountable to a standard of negligence and violation of their duty to care, hire, protect, and, etc. This is an endless loop and, besides, we're talking about the BSA vs. Society as to CSA, not this again. My point is, if the BSA is doing great with its youth protection and in fending off CSA compared to society at large, what is at all hurtful or harmful about upping the ante with YPT and YP efforts?

[Eagledad]

1 minute ago, ThenNow said:

Here we go again. I'm not blaming them. Again, this is not an ethics class. Love it, hate, stand by indifferent, the court and laws are holding them accountable to a standard of negligence and violation of their duty to care, hire, protect, and, etc. This is an endless loop and, besides, we're talking about the BSA vs. Society as to CSA, not this again. My point is, if the BSA is doing great with its youth protection and in fending off CSA compared to society at large, what is at all hurtful or harmful about upping the ante with YPT and YP efforts?

"the court and laws are holding them accountable to a standard of negligence and violation of their duty to care, hire, protect, and, etc."

Yes, that. 

Strang! You sure are taking big swipes at that gnat. My post was just a general explanation for why so many want the discussion.

 "hurtful or harmful about upping the ante with YPT and YP efforts".

What?

Barry

[johnsch322]

29 minutes ago, qwazse said:

Many victims do not want to be part of this class. Either they've found healing elsewhere, or don't value their injury on a scale that would demand restitution.

Or are dead, now so mentally ill they can no longer function as human beings, have a fear of acknowledging what happened, or afraid of what family and friends might think of them etc. etc. etc. but I very much doubt many would be in the two reasons you mention here.  I say this as someone who has lived and carried this nightmare for over 50 years and this is not an attack on you or BSA or  the YPT.  

[ThenNow]

14 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

What?

Ok. Sorry. The word "blame" is simply not accurate here. I guess some people may do that. I get it. You cut off  critical parts of that last quote, btw, so you might not have read or understood what I said. That's okay, though. I am not getting into it with you, again. I have no desire. I would like to leave it there. 

Btw, I'm not trying to get the last word. I love to debate, I just don't see this going anywhere productive.

Edited May 19, 2021 by ThenNow

[Eagledad]

Just now, ThenNow said:

Ok. Sorry. The word "blame" is simply not accurate here. I guess some people may do that. I get it. You cut off  critical parts of that last quote, btw, so you might not have read or understood what I said. That's okay, though. I am not getting into it with you, again. I have no desire. I would like to leave it there. 

I'm not sure what you mean, and maybe you aren't in a good position for a pragmatic discussion anyway.

From the very beginning of this thing, most of us knew the BSA would pay. It's a litigious society. But, the question of, does the BSA organization deserve the blame, will be a popular discussion topic for a long time. It's a gnat the size of an elephant.

And by the way, I don't cut off parts of text for some kind of advantage. Not my style. I respond honestly to what I think the poster is saying. If I misunderstood the poster, I'm mature enough to admit my mistake. I desire an honest discussion and respect honest contributions. Some folks get annoyed at me because I call them out when I think they aren't being respectful, or truthful. I only cut off text to highlight the specific part of the quote to which I am responding.

Barry

[qwazse]

17 hours ago, johnsch322 said:

Or are dead, now so mentally ill they can no longer function as human beings, have a fear of acknowledging what happened, or afraid of what family and friends might think of them etc. etc. etc. but I very much doubt many would be in the two reasons you mention here.  I say this as someone who has lived and carried this nightmare for over 50 years and this is not an attack on you or BSA or  the YPT.  

@johnsch322, I’m only basing this on the extant victims who I’ve known. And, none of those where in scouting. Their responses toward their abusers and the institutions where it happened are so diverse that I could not put a one-size-fits-all pattern. I first thought, like you, that they’d all be inclined in one direction. But some were unexpectedly content, others were crushed. Of course, I don’t think any were offered some kind of settlement, and perhaps that would change their perspective. Perhaps at the hands of a scout leader changes things.

On these forums over the years, we have heard from one or two survivors who became scouters and were strong proponents of the organization. It’s not clear if they joined the class or not. One has said he did not.

Regarding the dead or currently disabled, we have the same problem with estimating rates from general population, since most surveys are on adults looking retrospectively, and many victims aren’t there to report. I have only analyzed one survey that queried sexual abuse in children (reported by child or parent), and I’m almost certain those surveys are biased against responding to the abuse question in the affirmative.

That’s why it would be useful if someone could tally the present list of complaints by estimated year of incident. Such data would serve as a good research tool.

Edited May 20, 2021 by qwazse