YPT Changes in TCC Proposal

[MikeS72]

23 minutes ago, yknot said:

I understand it's a volunteer problem, but if BSA knows it lacks the volunteers to do the job properly, should it be continuing to offer programming?

My comment was in direct response the the idea that Boys & Girls Clubs require and interview with professional staff.  I am sure that my district could establish a committee to do this with volunteers, as could many others.  That was not what @Eagle1993 stated in his Boys & Girls Clubs post.

[yknot]

37 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

I never went to say BSA should not pay.  I agree that BSA needs to pay.  The crimes were done under their watch.   I disagree with the demonizing as I really don't think that happened as a clandestine effort to hide the truth.  CSA is so ugly and inconceivable that everyone was in denial about the reality of the abuse and the potential evil acts of our own neighbors and friends.  ... I just don't believe people associated CSA with a common safety initiative.  

There are many cases and claims however that do involve intentional cover up, especially if you look beyond just what has turned up on this Forum. It ultimately may not serve the best interests of BSA and children for the bankruptcy to have been filed, because if these egregious cases were told publicly in court it might jolt more people out of denial or deflection. BSA is still in effect covering up youth protection violations today. How otherwise do you explain, for example, the continued existence of units that parade youth wearing loincloths? BSA is aware but ignores it, presumably for concerns about membership and money.   

[CynicalScouter]

15 minutes ago, MikeS72 said:

I am sure that my district could establish a committee to do this with volunteers, as could many others.

So a group of untrained volunteers is going to have program safety oversight? Jurisdiction over child sexual assault?

Yeah, we'll be right back where we were. That's why the TCC insisted, rightfully, on at leas the national level a monitor. I'd go one step further have demand BSA hired 200 independent monitors, one for each council, to ensure YP compliance. Every Catholic diocese, for example, has this (Office for the Protection of Children, Office of Safe Environment).

I'll start to take BSA seriously about sexual abuse when it has 1 such DEDICATED PROFESSIONAL per council.

I would NOT be shocked if the outside professional that would be appointed to review BSA's YP policies made a similar recommendation given BSA's track record.

https://www.usccb.org/node/25794

 

[CynicalScouter]

21 minutes ago, yknot said:

 BSA is still in effect covering up youth protection violations today. How otherwise do you explain, for example, the continued existence of units that parade youth wearing loincloths? BSA is aware but ignores it, presumably for concerns about membership and money.  

Yep. YPT goes out the window when the donors get mad enough.

[David CO]

1 hour ago, yknot said:

BSA is still in effect covering up youth protection violations today. How otherwise do you explain, for example, the continued existence of units that parade youth wearing loincloths? BSA is aware but ignores it, presumably for concerns about membership and money.   

It's been about 30 years since I've seen boys wearing loincloths with NA regalia, but I've seen a lot of girls wearing string bikinis, which are even more revealing than loincloths.  If you want people to follow rules, you need to have some degree of fairness in the rules.

BSA would have a hard time telling girls to dress more modestly, knowing that they would get an immediate outcry about body shaming.  The Chartered Organizations have the same problem.  It's not a hill most CO's want to die on.

When I was a kid, boys were allowed to be a lot less modest than girls.  Now it is the exact opposite.  Maybe we should make our rules meet somewhere in the middle.  Not necessarily the same rules, but rules that require a similar amount of modesty.

 

Edited October 1, 2021 by David CO

[David CO]

42 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Yep. YPT goes out the window when the donors get mad enough.

YPT goes out the window when the rules aren't fair enough.

[fred8033]

59 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

So a group of untrained volunteers is going to have program safety oversight? Jurisdiction over child sexual assault?

• Paid does not mean trained or effective or answerable.  
• Volunteer does not mean untrained or ineffective or not answerable.

Paid is a financial exchange.  Oversight is a responsibility.  

You can infer a strong link, but it is not an absolute.

Edited October 1, 2021 by fred8033

[yknot]

21 minutes ago, David CO said:

It's been about 30 years since I've seen boys wearing loincloths with NA regalia, but I've seen a lot of girls wearing string bikinis, which are even more revealing than loincloths.  If you want people to follow rules, you need to have some degree of fairness in the rules.

BSA would have a hard time telling girls to dress more modestly, knowing that they would get an immediate outcry about body shaming.  The Chartered Organizations have the same problem.  It's not a hill most CO's want to die on.

When I was a kid, boys were allowed to be a lot less modest than girls.  Now it is the exact opposite.  Maybe we should make our rules meet somewhere in the middle.  Not necessarily the same rules, but rules that require a similar amount of modesty.

 

I'm not talking about swimwear, I am talking about camp ceremonies, and I am talking present day.

As far as swimwear, there are a lot of scouts who are competitive swimmers and they are used to wearing performance suits. I don't see much difference between genders in that regard whether you are talking square inches of coverage or form fit. In and around the water, swim wear is appropriate. 

[ThenNow]

2 hours ago, elitts said:

My biggest problem whenever this topic comes up in a forum or article is with the headings.  The heading is always "Increasing Youth Protection standards" or "Improving Youth Protection Training standards", but I have yet to see anyone offer a convincing argument about there being something insufficient about the basic Youth Protection rules within the BSA. 

You may not consider any of what’s said (even just now) a “convincing argument about there being something insufficient...”, but this is the list I made when we had another thread on the topic. I’d add the new stuff, but I’m too lazy. To me, when any other organization is doing something more rigorous, effectively innovative and thorough, it argues in favor of there being an insufficiency or room for measurable improvement. 

https://www.scouter.com/uploads/monthly_2021_04/image.png.1a5c05d84aa9d8ee188124df631ce364.png

Edited October 1, 2021 by ThenNow

[CynicalScouter]

12 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

Paid does not mean trained or effective or answerable

As we have now quite clearly learned, the failure of volunteers to police or self-police child sexual abuse has cost BSA almost everything.

As the Catholic Dioceses have now done, BSA needs to do. If these people through their lack of diligence are going to get the BSA or LCs in civil liability as it relates to child sexual abuse, they need to be taken out of the equation OR placed under the direct oversight of a paid professional. In the Catholic model this is called the "Safe Environment Coordinators".

After that I'd stick in each unit a mandatory Youth Protection Compliance Officer (Catholic = Safe Environment Compliance Officers) and make the position mandatory to recharter. For example, under current BSA rules to charter a Scouts BSA unit you need 5 people: a Scoutmaster Committee Chair, COR, and at least 2 Committee Members. I would mandate either a 6th person as Youth Protection Compliance Officer (not this wishy washy "Youth Protection Champion") or make one of the mandatory committee spots that position.

And note the word is COMPLIANCE. Not "well, YP gets in the way, so we just need to ignore it". Nope. Compliance means compliance.

Put some heads on pikes (which is why I also want Local Councils to report annually data on number of volunteers removed/purged/punished for YP violations) and then maybe I'll believe BSA is serious about YP.

[elitts]

31 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

You may not consider any of what’s said (even just now) a “convincing argument about there being something insufficient...”, but this is the list I made when we had another thread on the topic. I’d add the new stuff, but I’m too lazy. To me, when any other organization is doing something more rigorous, effectively innovative and thorough, it argues in favor of there being an insufficiency or room for measurable improvement. 

https://www.scouter.com/uploads/monthly_2021_04/image.png.1a5c05d84aa9d8ee188124df631ce364.png 106.08 kB · 0 downloads

What on there is "New and innovative"? 

Spot Checks is the active component there that isn't done in some way right now.  I suppose it is doable, but not really any different than the visits DEs are supposed to be doing with all units.  Since CSA isn't something that happens where anyone else can see, I'm not sure how a spot check would be useful unless you are just looking to see if a pack/troop/crew is just violating "2 Deep" or "no one on one" as a matter of standard practice.

Zero Tolerance is almost never a good plan anywhere I've ever heard of it being the rule of the day.  Unless it's just talking about major violations.  I'm all for zero tolerance of giving a kid porn or alcohol, but not so much for sending an (entirely appropriate) email without remembering to cc someone else.

The rest of the stuff isn't about rules or actions taken to keep kids safe, it's either stuff we already have but you think somehow it needs to be better, or it's about reporting and oversight. (which I have no issue with)

 

[ThenNow]

21 minutes ago, elitts said:

The rest of the stuff isn't about rules or actions taken to keep kids safe, it's either stuff we already have but you think somehow it needs to be better, or it's about reporting and oversight. (which I have no issue with)

I’m checking out of this one. I was just sharing and tried to do so with the caveat that you might not think any of it is valuable. You guys can pound on each other. I have other fish to fry.

[HelpfulTracks]

3 hours ago, yknot said:

BSA is still in effect covering up youth protection violations today. How otherwise do you explain, for example, the continued existence of units that parade youth wearing loincloths? BSA is aware but ignores it, presumably for concerns about membership and money.   

 

2 hours ago, yknot said:

I'm not talking about swimwear, I am talking about camp ceremonies, and I am talking present day.

I agree, this is violation of several policies. Please provide those locations and dates and I will gladly take it to national myself. 

[CynicalScouter]

4 minutes ago, HelpfulTracks said:

I agree, this is violation of several policies. Please provide those locations and dates and I will gladly take it to national myself. 

National won’t lift a finger. Several camps and OA events still do this. No one says boo.

Edited October 1, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[fred8033]

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

As we have now quite clearly learned, the failure of volunteers to police or self-police child sexual abuse has cost BSA almost everything.

 

Arguments are flip flopping on volunteer or paid.  When convenient one or the other is used.  Isn't the whole case based on paid professional handling IVF records?  So is the failure by paid professionals or loosely associated volunteers?  The crimes were clearly by both (paid --> camp staff; volunteer --> unit leaders). 

Too many people equate paid with process and oversight.  Sometimes paid is just cost without value.  Perhaps paid is needed, but not necessarily if an effective culture and process is established.  

 

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

As the Catholic Dioceses have now done, BSA needs to do. If these people through their lack of diligence are going to get the BSA or LCs in civil liability as it relates to child sexual abuse, they need to be taken out of the equation OR placed under the direct oversight of a paid professional. In the Catholic model this is called the "Safe Environment Coordinators".

After that I'd stick in each unit a mandatory Youth Protection Compliance Officer (Catholic = Safe Environment Compliance Officers) and make the position mandatory to recharter. For example, under current BSA rules to charter a Scouts BSA unit you need 5 people: a Scoutmaster Committee Chair, COR, and at least 2 Committee Members. I would mandate either a 6th person as Youth Protection Compliance Officer (not this wishy washy "Youth Protection Champion") or make one of the mandatory committee spots that position.

And note the word is COMPLIANCE. Not "well, YP gets in the way, so we just need to ignore it". Nope. Compliance means compliance.

Put some heads on pikes (which is why I also want Local Councils to report annually data on number of volunteers removed/purged/punished for YP violations) and then maybe I'll believe BSA is serious about YP.

Equating today's problems against todays practices and yesterday's problems against yesterday's practices.  Mixing failures from a different era against current practices.  Mixing lots of mixing and inferring issues.  From what I've seen, compliance is extremely consistent.  

Assigning a committee member explicitly with the role of a compliance officer is an okay idea.  Personally, I thought it was always at least explicitly my job as the CC and the COR.  But then again, having a MC assigned that role too would be ok.  

I just don't like the idea of councils reporting YP numbers as it's problematic, but fine.  I just don't think it will be a big help.

The country has mandatory reporting of incidents to police, etc.  We need mandatory roll-up.  An organization receiving a report needs to record the notification in a national database for roll-up and analysis.  ... Yea, not just BSA.  But this is where kids will really be helped.