LDS Abuse Handling

[yknot]

36 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

Minimizing risk?  I have no clue what you mean.   But I'm 100% offended that you are asserting this statement is the attitude that will cause us to lose scouting.  Baloney.   Absolute baloney.  

Wanting to blame others is what will cause division and destroy scouting.  Worse, it's just mean and un-scout-like.  

If you really want to protect vulnerable people, you need to understand the patterns and nature of abuse.  You need to look at the many, many varied failure modes.  To repeatedly bash a single source is unconstructive. 

Past society failures to identify and prevent abuse were huge and everywhere.  

 

 

Let me try to explain it this way: We can't minimize risk if we keep trying to blame youth protection failures in scouting on outside societal trends. What's going on in society is almost irrelevant. If we can't do a better job of minimizing risk within scouting, it really can't go forward except possibly as a family scouting destination program. The attitude that abuse occurs ubiquitously in society anyway so there is nothing more that can be done to prevent it deflects blame away from scouting and prevents the organization from dealing with the fact it still has a problem. That, in my opinion, is what will kill scouting. It might continue along for awhile post bankruptcy until the next spate of lawsuits but then that will be it. Scouting won't survive a Round Two.  I'm not trying to be offensive in my opinion, but I do think it is the likely reality. 

[Eagledad]

7 hours ago, yknot said:

Let me try to explain it this way: We can't minimize risk if we keep trying to blame youth protection failures in scouting on outside societal trends. What's going on in society is almost irrelevant. If we can't do a better job of minimizing risk within scouting, it really can't go forward except possibly as a family scouting destination program. The attitude that abuse occurs ubiquitously in society anyway so there is nothing more that can be done to prevent it deflects blame away from scouting and prevents the organization from dealing with the fact it still has a problem. That, in my opinion, is what will kill scouting. It might continue along for awhile post bankruptcy until the next spate of lawsuits but then that will be it. Scouting won't survive a Round Two.  I'm not trying to be offensive in my opinion, but I do think it is the likely reality. 

Your opinion is certainly just an opinion. As an engineer who has to think logically every day in big pictures to work problems, your opinion doesn't makes sense because you don't have any information, proof, or data to show that your theory is killing scouting. None. 

There are a lot of dynamics going on in the world, culture, and BSA, at the moment, so how could anyone determine what is killing scouting? Or if scouting is even dying.; Sure, the BSA is taking hits right now, but can we really say that is the result of actions within the BSA. The world is in a mess and a lot of organizations are trying to get back to some kind of normal. 

And, I can certainly give a good argument for much of the membership loses before the pandemic and law suit. But are my arguments valid at the moment of the pandemic and the litigation process? The pandemic has forced new and different approaches to scouting activities. But, that in of itself describes a struggle to survive

If you want to keep pushing you theory that Youth Protection must change to fix the out-side-worlds perception of the BSA, then my logical approach is describe the problem in a detail that we can make logical decisions. We have to know what to fix before we can discuss fixes. From my professional experience, we need details of how the victims found themselves in situations where they weren't protected. We look for trends and then discuss how Youth Protection needs changing.

Barry

[elitts]

17 hours ago, yknot said:

I took the time to re read my own comments to make sure I did not inadvertently say anything that could be construed as emotional or offensive because I would not want to do that. I did not. Virtually all my comments are factual -- stating state laws and resources, including ones that are used by BSA, and in some cases providing links. When I have disagreed with you and have been unable to follow your logic, I have clearly said so and been respectful in doing so. Frankly, I think you and others are having emotional reactions  to statements of facts or opinions you don't agree with. I can understand something is your opinion, but I don't think it's emotional to say I don't agree with it or can't follow how you arrived at it. 

When I was talking about emotional appeals I was referring to the logical fallacy known as an "appeal to emotion"; I wasn't accusing you of being overly emotional or anything.  Though I'll grant you that my tone was perhaps a touch harsher than I really intended.

That said, my problem with your arguments is unchanged.  The issue we are discussing is whether or not it's reasonable for employers to establish a policy requiring contact with the Legal/HR departments before making a required report of abuse or neglect to a state agency.  You believe it's not reasonable.  But your actual arguments to support your position don't have anything to do with why allowing such a system wouldn't work, or how it would result in children being unsafer or what problems may occur if those employer systems are utilized.  Instead your arguments have simply been:

• The Jerry Sandusky case happened and that proves indirect reporting is a problem.

This is a "Red Herring" fallacy.  Indirect reporting isn't what we are talking about, we are talking about Direct Reporting, simply with an extra step involved.

• Some state laws use the phrase "immediately report" and one state specifies that the report to the state must occur before informing your employer.

This is an "Appeal to Authority".  It's factually true, but doesn't actually prove the merits of the position, it simply argues that because some states agree with the position, it must be right.

• "It is discussions like this one that make me question whether scouting should continue. If the focus isn't on protecting kids, then ...  "

This is an "Appeal to Emotion".  Rather than argue for your point you have implied that by even discussing the issue we are failing to protect kids.

• "this seems like an awful lot of backflip rationalization to support protecting an institution and not a kid."
• "You have put an awful lot of thought into defending deferred reporting"

These are both "Ad-Hominem Attacks".  Rather than present a reason why your argument is correct, you've attacked my motives for making the argument in the first place.

 

So all that said, let me ask you specifically.  Given that a non-emergency response to a report of abuse or neglect is going to take several hours at a minimum and more likely a day or two and with the understanding that reporting to your Legal/HR department does NOT absolve you of making a report to the state;  Why would allowing companies to have a policy requiring staff to speak with Legal before making their report be a problem?

17 hours ago, yknot said:

I think discussions about youth protection in the context of the religious institutions that have been involved in scouting, of which LDS is certainly a dominant one, are perhaps some of the most relevant discussions on this forum. Trying to understand the differing attitudes among all the players involved regarding youth protection policies, training, reporting, etc., has been central to this our greatest crisis and will be exquisitely relevant to any future survival of the BSA. We have to be willing to be brutally honest that we have had attitudes, policies, beliefs, and procedures that have not worked and despite great improvements are still not working as well as they could. I'm Catholic, attend Methodist, and have ecumenical connection to other churches. I have the same discussions and ask the same kinds of questions in those arenas. 

There is a difference between acknowledging past failures in order to learn where improvements are needed and public self-flagellation in order to make other people feel better.  Practically speaking, discussing the failures from pre-1980 has absolutely nothing to do with making scouts safer today because all of those failures occurred under a framework that no longer exists in a society that no longer exists.  Even the failures of the 1980s and 1990s aren't particularly relevant to safety today because you were talking about a society that was still relatively unaware of the wide-spread nature child abuse (sexual or otherwise).  But I do agree that sugar coating or glossing over the current situation and recent problems along with what works and what doesn't is not something that is sustainable.

[SSScout]

Many moon ago, I worked for a county gov't agency.  Big committee meeting about a problem perceived by the upper echelons (I was lower middle management, for lack of a better descriptor).  When someone mentioned who should we report  "X" to, the Big Boss said, why to me. I need to know about such "problems".

When someone else said, I think I would call the police and 911 first, the BB said why?  If it's already happened, we need to handle our end of things.  But the occurance is dangerous and illegal....   Exactly . And our office needs to handle it. Contact us first.  

The meeting was then dismissed....  The BB was later given a  "sideways" promotion..... 

Edited June 8, 2021 by SSScout

[yknot]

2 hours ago, elitts said:

When I was talking about emotional appeals I was referring to the logical fallacy known as an "appeal to emotion"; I wasn't accusing you of being overly emotional or anything.  Though I'll grant you that my tone was perhaps a touch harsher than I really intended.

That said, my problem with your arguments is unchanged.  The issue we are discussing is whether or not it's reasonable for employers to establish a policy requiring contact with the Legal/HR departments before making a required report of abuse or neglect to a state agency.  You believe it's not reasonable.  But your actual arguments to support your position don't have anything to do with why allowing such a system wouldn't work, or how it would result in children being unsafer or what problems may occur if those employer systems are utilized.  Instead your arguments have simply been:

• The Jerry Sandusky case happened and that proves indirect reporting is a problem.

This is a "Red Herring" fallacy.  Indirect reporting isn't what we are talking about, we are talking about Direct Reporting, simply with an extra step involved.

• Some state laws use the phrase "immediately report" and one state specifies that the report to the state must occur before informing your employer.

This is an "Appeal to Authority".  It's factually true, but doesn't actually prove the merits of the position, it simply argues that because some states agree with the position, it must be right.

• "It is discussions like this one that make me question whether scouting should continue. If the focus isn't on protecting kids, then ...  "

This is an "Appeal to Emotion".  Rather than argue for your point you have implied that by even discussing the issue we are failing to protect kids.

• "this seems like an awful lot of backflip rationalization to support protecting an institution and not a kid."
• "You have put an awful lot of thought into defending deferred reporting"

These are both "Ad-Hominem Attacks".  Rather than present a reason why your argument is correct, you've attacked my motives for making the argument in the first place.

 

So all that said, let me ask you specifically.  Given that a non-emergency response to a report of abuse or neglect is going to take several hours at a minimum and more likely a day or two and with the understanding that reporting to your Legal/HR department does NOT absolve you of making a report to the state;  Why would allowing companies to have a policy requiring staff to speak with Legal before making their report be a problem?

There is a difference between acknowledging past failures in order to learn where improvements are needed and public self-flagellation in order to make other people feel better.  Practically speaking, discussing the failures from pre-1980 has absolutely nothing to do with making scouts safer today because all of those failures occurred under a framework that no longer exists in a society that no longer exists.  Even the failures of the 1980s and 1990s aren't particularly relevant to safety today because you were talking about a society that was still relatively unaware of the wide-spread nature child abuse (sexual or otherwise).  But I do agree that sugar coating or glossing over the current situation and recent problems along with what works and what doesn't is not something that is sustainable.

I'll give you what my personal bias is in this discussion. I have had some involvement with a juvenile counseling and diversion program and while most of it did not involve sex abuse cases, it did underscore the necessity of immediately reporting and dealing with juvenile crises. An hour in some of those situations can be too late. You may see it as the needs of an organization to protect itself or maybe even just the lawyerly desire to proceed in an orderly fashion but crises with kids are never orderly. They are messy and can get out of hand quickly. Think of how impulsively the average adolescent or teen boy acts. Further, the hour or day you cite between the time someone sees something or overhears something is a false timeline to reassure yourself with. There is no way of knowing when the real timeline started -- how many hours or months that child has been in crisis. Until it's investigated, you have no idea if you are at the beginning, mid, or end point of abuse and how close that kid is to doing something he shouldn't. These are the emotional and very experiential reasons I don't follow the logic of delayed reporting. I haven't seen it work well in practice. 

I'll go back to factual. I've looked through the statutes and sites of three states so far, NY, NJ, and PA, and all three require immediate reporting to a state agency or other official entity. Subsequent reporting to some of the institutional heads in these states is NOT to obtain legal advice but to report in order to begin collecting evidence. I continue to hold the opinion that delayed reporting to protect the interests of the institution is counter to the dictates or intent of many of these laws, which are more about moving quickly to intervene and to gain evidence. I think you are misinterpreting them and I still don't understand why. Finally, you've have gone back through pages and pages of comments I have written and come up with two pretty mildly worded quizzical comments that you have dramatically interpreted as attacks. I am not attacking you. I don't like your logic and your positions and am trying to get you to see differently.  Obviously, I'm failing. 

I completely understand that people can have legitimate questions about mandatory reporting procedures but instead of inserting a delay into the process by requiring an employee or member to report internally first, the better approach would seem to be to provide more education. In fact, many of these laws seem to require it. That's an area of YP that BSA could obviously do a better job on and recognizing that and other aspects of YP that need improvement has nothing to do with self flagellation or blame. It is my opinion that if BSA doesn't take such overlooked aspects of YP more seriously it can't survive long post bankruptcy.

 

 

 

[fred8033]

5 hours ago, SSScout said:

Many moon ago, I worked for a county gov't agency.  Big committee meeting about a problem perceived by the upper echelons (I was lower middle management, for lack of a better descriptor).  When someone mentioned who should we report  "X" to, the Big Boss said, why to me. I need to know about such "problems".

When someone else said, I think I would call the police and 911 first, the BB said why?  If it's already happened, we need to handle our end of things.  But the occurance is dangerous and illegal....   Exactly . And our office needs to handle it. Contact us first.  

The meeting was then dismissed....  The BB was later given a  "sideways" promotion..... 

 

18 minutes ago, yknot said:

I completely understand that people can have legitimate questions about mandatory reporting procedures but instead of inserting a delay into the process by requiring an employee or member to report internally first, the better approach would seem to be to provide more education. In fact, many of these laws seem to require it. 

I'm also not comfortable with policies that say call before reporting ... in any organization.  It infers creepy motives.  The reality is it can quickly create a mess.  The reality is false reporting does happen by the over zealous or those with other motives.  BUT, I'd rather see that over-reporting than any delay in reporting. 

Even the hint that there is a policy of "call us first, before you do what is legally required" is just not great marketing and definitely not good teaching and it might result in someone not reporting something they should.  I'd rather see the police and public organizations spend their money on it than a non-profit try to manage it.  

It's always a hard decision.  I've had to report twice in my role as a volunteer; not thru BSA, but thru another organization.  I'm pretty sure in both cases the parents lost the kids.  Hardest ### call I've ever made.  I could have easily been talked out of reporting or not done it.  

SUGGESTED SPECIFIC BSA G2SS CHANGE ... https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/34416.pdf ... page 4 ... Who to call first?  It doesn't explicitly say who to call first.    Should I call the BSA help line?  Is that mandatory reporting?  Should I call 911?  Should I call ?   Do I call 911 then BSA help line?  OR BSA help line and then they route me to the right reporting method?   ... Even having the helpline infers something that I suspect it is not doing.  ... I'd like the guide to say "Call 911 first if immediate danger or call your local police / ??? / ??? if not an immediate danger" ... or call 911 to ask how to report abuse  ... (I'm not sure who the first contact should be either).   ... As a second step, you should call BSA scouts helpline so that they can help handle the implications for the scouts, the unit and local scouting.     The key is due the mandatory reporting first.  Avoid implying BSA before required legal obligations.

[elitts]

49 minutes ago, yknot said:

Further, the hour or day you cite between the time someone sees something or overhears something is a false timeline to reassure yourself with.

I'm not sure how this is a false timeline, what I was talking about is the response time of government agencies, not how long the child would be "safe" for.  Obviously if you think a kid is being abused "right now" you would call 911 for immediate help. But If you call any state agency except a police or fire emergency line, you aren't going to get someone jumping up out of their chair to go knock on the child's door to check on them.  It will take a certain amount of time to record the information, do background checks, assign an investigator and then get the investigator out to make a first contact.  THAT is what would take somewhere between a couple hours and a day or two.

Quote

Finally, you've have gone back through pages and pages of comments I have written and come up with two pretty mildly worded quizzical comments that you have dramatically interpreted as attacks. I am not attacking you.

I was using debate and persuasive/argumentative writing terminology which tends to sound somewhat combative.  I don't actually feel personally attacked or slighted.

Quote

I completely understand that people can have legitimate questions about mandatory reporting procedures but instead of inserting a delay into the process by requiring an employee or member to report internally first, the better approach would seem to be to provide more education.

More education certainly can't hurt.  In particular I think educating people on what types of behaviors to look at and when to scrutinize closer is a great idea.  I know that before the YPT I took when I started as a Scouter, I hadn't seen anything that really looked at what "grooming" was.

But I just don't view time and language the same way you appear to.  You appear to think "immediately report" literally means "drop everything and file a report right this second", while I think (in the context of these laws) that "immediately report" means "make the report as soon as you can reasonably do so).  Given your view, I guess taking 10-15 minutes to talk to Legal might seem like an unconscionable delay, though I'd be curious to know how fast you actually think Sheriffs and DSS personnel respond to these reports.

5 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

I'm also not comfortable with policies that say call before reporting ... in any organization.  It infers creepy motives.  The reality is it can quickly create a mess.  The reality is false reporting does happen by the over zealous or those with other motives.  BUT, I'd rather see that over-reporting than any delay in reporting. 

Even the hint that there is a policy of "call us first, before you do what is legally required" is just not great marketing and definitely not good teaching and it might result in someone not reporting something they should.  I'd rather see the police and public organizations spend their money on it than a non-profit try to manage it. 

I think that perception is going to be entirely dependent on your starting viewpoint of the organization.  If you are suspicious of organizations in general, you will find these policies creepy.  Personally, I wouldn't bat an eye at a company who had a policy that read:

Anyone working here who becomes aware of child abuse is legally required to report it.  You are to immediately inform your superior that you need to visit the Legal department and upon your arrival a staff member will log your report and immediately connect you with the appropriate legal authority.

 

 

[yknot]

1 hour ago, elitts said:

I'm not sure how this is a false timeline, what I was talking about is the response time of government agencies, not how long the child would be "safe" for.  Obviously if you think a kid is being abused "right now" you would call 911 for immediate help. But If you call any state agency except a police or fire emergency line, you aren't going to get someone jumping up out of their chair to go knock on the child's door to check on them.  It will take a certain amount of time to record the information, do background checks, assign an investigator and then get the investigator out to make a first contact.  THAT is what would take somewhere between a couple hours and a day or two.

Is that where you want to start, though? With the perspective that immediate reporting won't matter because it's going to take an hour or a day anyway? Again, you're not hearing me. Part of the problem with YP is that we have had a lack of urgency about it. We need more urgency to get better. That's what I'm aiming at. Not continuing the status quo. Getting better. Also, I think reaction times depend on the situation, the agency, and the people involved. I have seen immediate response. Jumping out of bed in the middle of night and knocking on a door response.  I have also seen institutionalized clogged arteries. In my experience, the more you involve institutions and procedures and legal consults, the more clogging you get. 

 

1 hour ago, elitts said:

I was using debate and persuasive/argumentative writing terminology which tends to sound somewhat combative.  I don't actually feel personally attacked or slighted.

Then why write it that way? Aren't we all trying to discuss these weighted topics with our different perspectives as carefully as possible? 

 

1 hour ago, elitts said:

More education certainly can't hurt.  In particular I think educating people on what types of behaviors to look at and when to scrutinize closer is a great idea.  I know that before the YPT I took when I started as a Scouter, I hadn't seen anything that really looked at what "grooming" was.

I was talking more about BSA educating people in each state what their mandatory reporting responsibilities are proactively rather than dealing with it passively by diverting them into a legal department consult. However, there is definitely much more BSA specific research and education, as well as general education, about YP that could be done. 

 

1 hour ago, elitts said:

But I just don't view time and language the same way you appear to.  You appear to think "immediately report" literally means "drop everything and file a report right this second", while I think (in the context of these laws) that "immediately report" means "make the report as soon as you can reasonably do so).  Given your view, I guess taking 10-15 minutes to talk to Legal might seem like an unconscionable delay, though I'd be curious to know how fast you actually think Sheriffs and DSS personnel respond to these reports.

 

 

Yes, I literally do think that and I think many of the state laws intend that as well. That's further supported by the verbiage in some of the statues that directs mandatory reporters to next contact institutional heads to immediately begin the collection of evidence.  I do think there is a difference with youth vs. adults. When you report something to a youth crisis hotline, you get an immediate response depending on the situation. Some of this is related to the rising suicide rates among teenagers and now even middle school age adolescents. A lot of the front line workers in these areas do not fool around. That's not directly tied to sexual abuse reporting, but abuse is often a part of that crisis picture so it is related and influences the response.

 

Finally, thank you. I did learn one really cool thing from you. I now see how to break up these long text blocks so that I can respond to individual points instead of just leaving the whole scree up there. 

 

[The Latin Scot]

I have never had a job where I wasn't a mandated reporter - do such careers exist? Isn't being a mandated reporter a standard requirement of almost any job?

Either way, now I'm a bit confused , mostly because much of the content of this thread is, frankly, veering off-topic. Ironic, as so much of what has been posted has been part of an effort to legitimize this discussion about the Church as being "about Scouting," though now it seems to be about YPT, or mandated reporting ... just what exactly is this discussion supposed to be about? and how much of it has strayed from that topic? 

This is why threads targeting religions in particular so often lead to trouble ...

 

[yknot]

26 minutes ago, The Latin Scot said:

I have never had a job where I wasn't a mandated reporter - do such careers exist? Isn't being a mandated reporter a standard requirement of almost any job?

Either way, now I'm a bit confused , mostly because much of the content of this thread is, frankly, veering off-topic. Ironic, as so much of what has been posted has been part of an effort to legitimize this discussion about the Church as being "about Scouting," though now it seems to be about YPT, or mandated reporting ... just what exactly is this discussion supposed to be about? and how much of it has strayed from that topic? 

This is why threads targeting religions in particular so often lead to trouble ...

 

I don't think you can have institutions taking things into their own hands when it comes to reporting YP incidents. That's how I think this whole thread got started. The discussion has been about degree -- some (me and others) feel it should not occur at all, others have argued it has a role. The topic initially came up as a result of a document used in one particular church, but it has not to my mind targeted that church. I haven't been thinking about that church when writing comments. I've been thinking about the process and how its delineated in the various states. I think you are seeing things that aren't there. 

[Eagle94-A1]

5 hours ago, fred8033 said:

SUGGESTED SPECIFIC BSA G2SS CHANGE ... https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/34416.pdf ... page 4 ... Who to call first?  It doesn't explicitly say who to call first.    Should I call the BSA help line?  Is that mandatory reporting?  Should I call 911?  Should I call ?   Do I call 911 then BSA help line?  OR BSA help line and then they route me to the right reporting method?   ... Even having the helpline infers something that I suspect it is not doing.  ... I'd like the guide to say "Call 911 first if immediate danger or call your local police / ??? / ??? if not an immediate danger" ... or call 911 to ask how to report abuse  ... (I'm not sure who the first contact should be either).   ... As a second step, you should call BSA scouts helpline so that they can help handle the implications for the scouts, the unit and local scouting.     The key is due the mandatory reporting first.  Avoid implying BSA before required legal obligations.

Just watched the new YPT3.0 training one of our soon to be new committee members did tonite. In the training it states #1 job is to remove the Scout from the situation and make sure they are safe #2 is call 911 or local law enforcement.

[fred8033]

10 hours ago, elitts said:

I think that perception is going to be entirely dependent on your starting viewpoint of the organization.  If you are suspicious of organizations in general, you will find these policies creepy.  Personally, I wouldn't bat an eye at a company who had a policy that read:

Anyone working here who becomes aware of child abuse is legally required to report it.  You are to immediately inform your superior that you need to visit the Legal department and upon your arrival a staff member will log your report and immediately connect you with the appropriate legal authority.

I'm comfortable with what you are saying.  And, I do think very highly of BSA.  But when I read page four of G2SS as it exists today, it says to fulfill legal requirements, but also then has a "scouts first" hotline.  Doesn't introduce the concept of scouts first.  Doesn't mention that calling law enforcement is not fulfilled by calling scouts first.  

Perhaps it would be as easy as saying "first report to local law enforcement.  Then after the reporting process has started, also report the incident to the scouts first hotline."  Right now, I can easily read and interpret it as scouts first hotline is part of how I fulfill the legal requirements.  Perhaps it's the place where I'll get the phone numbers.  Or get advice on if I'm really in a reporting situation.  

Even in the best attempt to make things clear, policies often leave vague holes.  Though BSA's G2SS statement is pretty good, it is far less than perfect.  

Edited June 9, 2021 by fred8033

[fred8033]

7 hours ago, The Latin Scot said:

This is why threads targeting religions in particular so often lead to trouble ...

Well said.  

[elitts]

13 hours ago, The Latin Scot said:

I have never had a job where I wasn't a mandated reporter - do such careers exist? Isn't being a mandated reporter a standard requirement of almost any job?

Either way, now I'm a bit confused , mostly because much of the content of this thread is, frankly, veering off-topic. Ironic, as so much of what has been posted has been part of an effort to legitimize this discussion about the Church as being "about Scouting," though now it seems to be about YPT, or mandated reporting ... just what exactly is this discussion supposed to be about? and how much of it has strayed from that topic? 

This is why threads targeting religions in particular so often lead to trouble ...

The ongoing discussion in this thread wasn't ever directly about the LDS, Muttsy posted something fairly negative about the LDS in the Bankruptcy thread and there was a response or two from that, but it would likely have died at that point except that we started talking about organizational requirements associated with mandatory reporting and required reporting in general so the whole group of posts got broken out and a new thread was created.  He didn't actually create a thread for the purpose of targeting the LDS.

14 hours ago, yknot said:

Is that where you want to start, though? With the perspective that immediate reporting won't matter because it's going to take an hour or a day anyway? Again, you're not hearing me. Part of the problem with YP is that we have had a lack of urgency about it. We need more urgency to get better. That's what I'm aiming at. Not continuing the status quo. Getting better. Also, I think reaction times depend on the situation, the agency, and the people involved. I have seen immediate response. Jumping out of bed in the middle of night and knocking on a door response.  I have also seen institutionalized clogged arteries. In my experience, the more you involve institutions and procedures and legal consults, the more clogging you get.

Frankly, yes, my preference for rules and laws is to institute the least restrictive/coercive policy possible that seems likely get the job done and then adjust from there if it proves to be less effective than desired.  Going the route of "maximum impact" at the governmental level is just far too likely to generate unintended consequences that often are terribly hard to unwind.

As far as the speed of response, well, I can't profess to be an expert on DSS (Dept of social services) response times; but as you indicated, the programs dedicated to an immediate response are the ones dealing with kids in crisis: "I can hear someone beating a child next door" or "I'm worried that this kid is going to harm themselves tonight" or "I think this kid is going to bring a gun to school tomorrow".  If someone thinks a kid (or an adult for that matter) is in immediate danger from themselves or someone else then a "drop everything and call 911" response is warranted, But that's not really what we are talking about here because very few people are going to see or hear a kid being actively injured without either doing something or calling someone.  

Mandatory reporting laws were designed for non-immediate situations where someone becomes aware of an incident or concerning behavior that has already happened.  Like a doctor finding a child with an STD or genital damage that could only be caused by sexual activity.  Or a school counselor encountering a teen with sudden emotional/behavioral changes that indicate abuse; or in a more directly related example, a Scouter overhearing scouts talking about how someone spent the night alone at a leader's house.
 

Quote

Then why write it that way? Aren't we all trying to discuss these weighted topics with our different perspectives as carefully as possible?

I wrote it that way because I was trying to use the actual terminology for the arguments you seemed to be making in an attempt to point out why I feel they represent flawed reasoning.  Please see: Logical Fallacies. 

 

[Eagle1993]

15 hours ago, The Latin Scot said:

Either way, now I'm a bit confused , mostly because much of the content of this thread is, frankly, veering off-topic. Ironic, as so much of what has been posted has been part of an effort to legitimize this discussion about the Church as being "about Scouting," though now it seems to be about YPT, or mandated reporting ... just what exactly is this discussion supposed to be about? and how much of it has strayed from that topic? 

This thread started in the bankruptcy thread with a post about the LDS relationship with BSA and a statement that the LDS is more at fault than BSA and should contribute a large amount to the settlement.  It quickly veered in a deeper discussion about LDS reporting practices and after a few pages of posts, I thought it would be best to pull the discussion out of the bankruptcy thread (as it had little to do with bankruptcy) and make it its own topic.  Part of that goal was to allow those who were not following the bankruptcy thread to realize what discussion was taking place and take part (if they desired).

I think this topic has run its course.  If someone wants to start a new topic about who is mandatory reporting, etc. that is fine.