YPT Changes in TCC Proposal

[CynicalScouter]

13 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Stupid question but here it goes. 

Who would be responsible legally for future abuse if BSA does adopt the outside group's YP policies?

I also want to point something out and this brought up several times: there is 0% chance the BSA will be forever end child sexual abuse within scouting.

The point is can BSA demonstrate to a judge and jury that it was not NEGLIGENT. Broadly speaking (and I mean broadly) the accusation against BSA in the lawsuits that were filed were

1. BSA knew it had a child sexual abuse problem from the start (the IV files existed in some form back to the 1920s) AND DID NOT DO ENOUGH
2. BSA knew it had a child sexual abuse problem from the start (the IV files existed in some form back to the 1920s) AND ACTIVELY TRIED TO HIDE IT
3. BSA knew it had a child sexual abuse problem from the start (the IV files existed in some form back to the 1920s) AND FAILED TO SUPERVISE VOLUNTEERS

All of these things (modern YPT, adopting whatever the outside group recommends) will weigh against these three claims. But whether in THIS particular case involving THIS particular victim and THIS particular adult volunteer, was BSA nevertheless negligent? TBD.

Edited October 5, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[Eagle1993]

Just now, CynicalScouter said:

I also want to point something out and this brought up several times: there is 0% chance the BSA will be forever end child sexual abuse.

The point is can BSA demonstrate to a judge and jury that it was not NEGLIGENT. Broadly speaking (and I mean broadly) the accusation against BSA in the lawsuits that were filed were

1. BSA knew it had a child sexual abuse problem from the start (the IV files existed in some form back to the 1920s) AND DID NOT DO ENOUGH
2. BSA knew it had a child sexual abuse problem from the start (the IV files existed in some form back to the 1920s) AND ACTIVELY TRIED TO HIDE IT
3. BSA knew it had a child sexual abuse problem from the start (the IV files existed in some form back to the 1920s) AND FAILED TO SUPERVISE VOLUNTEERS

All of these things (modern YPT, adopting whatever the outside group recommends) will weigh against these three claims. But whether in THIS particular case involving THIS particular victim and THIS particular adult volunteer, was BSA nevertheless negligent? TBD.

I actually expect COs to become the target of future lawsuits.  I think the weakest link we have is the approval of adult leaders.  In some cases, I would not be surprised to see adults working with units beyond 72 hours and are not registered leaders.  In other cases, they are registered ... but remember the only signature on the form for unit leaders is the COR.  So the COR will be brought into court and asked what he/she did to review/approve the leader (call references, etc.). In many cases, I expect COs could be found negligent in their role in youth protection under the current BSA system.

I'm honestly a bit surprised any CO would sign up for this level of liability.  Note that going forward, national BSA has almost no net assets (so probably not that attractive for lawsuits).  Many LCs are drained.  COs may be the ones targeted and many are paper only meaning they could be found negligent.

[CynicalScouter]

2 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

So the COR will be brought into court and asked what he/she did to review/approve the leader (call references, etc.). In many cases, I expect COs could be found negligent in their role in youth protection under the current BSA system.

That is exactly what the lawsuits that name COs are saying and why the Methodists are running for the doors. I remember the Methodist bishop who sent a letter claiming the church was being blamed for the actions of leaders CHOSEN BY BSA. No, bishop, if you look at each and every one of those adult applications, your church (going back to the 1920s) were signing off either through the COR, the IH, or both (for annual recharter).

That is why the entire CO system has been a joke for years. The idea that COs were really fulfilling their duties under the charters to oversee and supervise the unit? A sad, pathetic joke. Well guess what? The COs are now finding out that they are up a creek.

[David CO]

16 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Note that going forward, national BSA has almost no net assets (so probably not that attractive for lawsuits).  

I disagree.  There are people and groups who would like to use the courts to destroy scouting, even if there is little to be financially gained from it.  This is a culture war.

 

[T2Eagle]

42 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

So the COR will be brought into court and asked what he/she did to review/approve the leader (call references, etc.). In many cases, I expect COs could be found negligent in their role in youth protection under the current BSA system.

I'm honestly a bit surprised any CO would sign up for this level of liability.  Note that going forward, national BSA has almost no net assets (so probably not that attractive for lawsuits).  Many LCs are drained.  COs may be the ones targeted and many are paper only meaning they could be found negligent.

So, I'm the COR for a Catholic Parish.  For our parish, scouts is only one of many ministries for youth.  We have our own version of YPT, and it is required of everyone who volunteers: coaches, choir directors, catechism teachers, parents on field trips, etc., so the idea of having volunteer run youth programs is neither new nor unusual, and of course all Catholic parishes are well aware of liability for abuse.  So it's not unreasonable some version of the CO model will exist going forward.  The challenge of liability is insuring yourself against it.  That is probably the biggest issue going forward between COs and BSA.  

What I would like to understand, and where the failure of BSA transparency is so acute, is how abuse occurs today in light of YPT rules.  I doubt it's in background check failures, there are actually few convicted abusers who are slipping through those cracks.  Can anyone give an example that they know of how the abuse occurred despite the YPT rules?

In my units it would take a very determined predator, actively fooling all the other adults, and certainly conducting the abuse not at a scouting event, for all the protections to fail.  I know it happens, I just wish I knew more about how -- especially in whatever common, predictable ways --- so that as scouters we could even better protect against it.

Edited October 5, 2021 by T2Eagle

[Eagle1993]

4 minutes ago, T2Eagle said:

What I would like to understand, and where the failure of BSA transparency is so acute, is how abuse occurs today in light of YPT rules.  I doubt it's in background check failures, there are actually few convicted abusers who are slipping through those cracks.  Can anyone give an example that they know of how the abuse occurred despite the YPT rules?

 

I think this is difficult to answer as many victims may not indicate the abuse until years later.

Here is an example:

https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/crime/byers-beat/interview-with-parents-of-victims-former-boy-scout-leader/63-4b5013af-4d8b-4164-a92d-78bdd5093eeb

Quote

 

Boy Scout leaders assured him his son would be taken care of.

Their policy did not allow adults to be alone with children at any time, during or away from scouting events.

In his son’s case, that policy was not followed.

His son slept in a tent with only Baker and Baker’s son.

And, Baker had scouts over to his house where others were molested.

 

 

[CynicalScouter]

12 minutes ago, T2Eagle said:

Can anyone give an example that they know of how the abuse occurred despite the YPT rules?

Jonathan Spohrer case discussed here

 

 

 

[Eagle1993]

Here is another

https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/2019/09/07/boy-scout-leader-ronald-rowcliffe-has-faced-child-sex-abuse-allegations-before/2245186001/

This one is interesting as the man was charged in court in 2000 over abusing teenagers but got a plea deal.  That was an a leader of an Explorer unit ... so how could the BSA let him still be a leader in 2018/2019?

Quote

In August 2000, Rowcliffe was charged with three counts of endangering the welfare of a child in connection with incidents involving three boys — two 16-year-olds and one 15-year-old who he'd met through the Explorer Program of the Holley Fire Department. At the time, police said Rowcliffe gave the three boys haircuts at his residence and then had one of them shower and allowed him to view pornography on the internet.

This man pled guilty in 2020 to CSA at a scout camp.

So ... multiple red flags over several years including one within the BSA.  

I think this is where there are questions if BSA can really handle this.  This isn't from 1965.  Why was this guy a leader after all of these issues (including one within the BSA)?

[yknot]

This is about abuse in the Catholic Church in France but has some interesting parallels with US BSA case: 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/france-catholic-church-report-abuse/2021/10/05/05ae5c22-254c-11ec-8739-5cb6aba30a30_story.html

 

 

[CynicalScouter]

6 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

charged in court in 2000 over abusing teenagers but got a plea deal. 

 

6 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

This one is interesting as the man was charged in court in 2000 over abusing teenagers but got a plea deal.  That was an a leader of an Explorer unit ... so how could the BSA let him still be a leader in 2018/2019?

Likely because BSA did absolutely no reference checks and focused on convictions. According to this, the plea deal made no mention of anything about child sexual abuse. He plead out to firing off some pepper spray and if he stayed on his best behavior even THAT was dropped.

Quote

As part of a plea agreement reached with prosecutors in June 2001, the three endangering charges were dismissed and Rowcliffe admitted to a misdemeanor count of unlawfully possessing or selling noxious material for discharging pepper spray in the back of a police car in the presence of a young person in June 2000. Under the agreement, if Rowcliffe complied with court-imposed conditions that included an evaluation and counseling, even the charge he admitted to would be dropped.

 

Edited October 5, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[skeptic]

While he should have been no allowed based on currently known information, and it suggests poor checking.  Background checks I believe had not yet been ut in place.  Do not know whether this would have shown in one anyway.  Still, poor judgment in seeming to not check things properly.  Always the likely hood that references could have also been less than open, even if they were contacted.  But, this does not seem to indicate, at least from what is shown, sexual abuse on record at the time.  These types of examples are fuzzy at best, and we may be reaching some.  Not sure they are really particulary pertinent, other than supporting poor follow and review.  

 

[HelpfulTracks]

17 minutes ago, skeptic said:

While he should have been no allowed based on currently known information, and it suggests poor checking.  Background checks I believe had not yet been ut in place.  Do not know whether this would have shown in one anyway.  Still, poor judgment in seeming to not check things properly.  Always the likely hood that references could have also been less than open, even if they were contacted.  But, this does not seem to indicate, at least from what is shown, sexual abuse on record at the time.  These types of examples are fuzzy at best, and we may be reaching some.  Not sure they are really particulary pertinent, other than supporting poor follow and review.  

Background checks started around 2003, but would include incidents prior to that. However, since it appears the charges were dropped it is unlikely that it would have shown up on a check at a later date. I'm not sure what BSA could have done in this instance (with the information that has been posted). 

As for references, people are going to put their best references, and it is highly unlikely he would have included a reference that would give a negative review. Or given current laws, if someone would be willing to make a negative reference. 

Edited October 5, 2021 by HelpfulTracks

[HelpfulTracks]

I should have said around 2003, I believe. Not 100% sure, but I think that is correct or at least close. 

[T2Eagle]

41 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

 

Likely because BSA did absolutely no reference checks and focused on convictions. According to this, the plea deal made no mention of anything about child sexual abuse. He plead out to firing off some pepper spray and if he stayed on his best behavior even THAT was dropped.

 

That's a very unfair assumption.  The record was expunged, which means for all intents and purposes it never existed. 

In order to find out about the incident(s) you would need to conduct an independent investigation of him going back nearly a decade --- not interviewing references but rather pursuing people who may have known him and were themselves no longer associated with his previous employers.  I worked briefly for a United States Attorney and they weren't even that thorough in backgrounding me. 

This guy worked for one police department, was fired, worked for another department and the returned to the original department where he was rehired and conducted the behavior he was eventually, ineffectually, charged with.

Short of a deep investigation involving law enforcement officers with compulsive powers there's almost no way this guy would have been discovered by background.

What's not answered is how the abuse happened despite YPT.

Edited October 5, 2021 by T2Eagle

[Wondering]

From https://www.scoutingnewsroom.org/youth-protection/100-years-of-enhancing-efforts-to-protect-youth/

100 Years of Youth Protection

January 31, 2014

 

Recognizing that youth protection requires sustained vigilance, the BSA continues to be on the forefront of developing youth protection policies to strengthen and enhance efforts to protect youth through clear policies, training of adult volunteers, and effective screening of volunteers.  Following are the steps Scouting has taken throughout the past 100 years in an effort to create a safe environment for its youth:

1910

• The Boy Scouts of America incorporates on February 8.

1911

• The BSA institutes character reference checks for Scoutmasters.

1913

• The BSA begins long-standing collaboration with parents and chartered organizations in selecting Scout leaders.
• The BSA requires Scoutmasters and Scouts to register in order to participate in Scouting programs.

Mid-1920s

• The BSA begins cross-referencing all adult volunteers against a list of “ineligible volunteers” maintained at its national headquarters. This practice of identifying individuals deemed by the BSA as not having the moral, emotional, or character values for membership in the BSA is later discussed in William D. Murray’s 1937 book titled The History of the Boy Scouts of America.

1929

• The BSA expands adult registration to include every male adult involved in Scouting.

1935

• Theodore Roosevelt Jr. states that leadership is a sacred trust and discusses the existence and use of the confidential list of ineligible volunteers to protect youth.

1972

• The BSA begins developing standards for leadership as a guideline for screening adult leaders.

1981

• Scoutingmagazine runs an advertisement from the National Committee on the Prevention of Child Abuse. (Additional advertisements appear in 1983 and 1984.)

1985

• Scouting magazine presents the BSA’s position on “Child Abuse and Scouting.”
• Scouting magazine provides information regarding a governmental publication titled “Child Sexual Abuse Prevention—Tips to Parents.”

1986

• Boys’ Life magazine, with a circulation of 1.2 million youth and unit leaders, publishes “Wrong Kind of Touching.”
• Scouting magazine publishes “Child Abuse—Let’s Talk About It” and an article about child abuse by Dr. Walter Menninger of the famed Menninger Clinic.
• Scouting magazine publishes an extensive article titled “Child Abuse: Let’s Talk About It—A Statement by the Boy Scouts of America on Child Abuse,” which includes “the 12 points of the Child Bill of Rights.”

1987

• Scouting magazine publishes “Child Sexual Abuse—How to Deal with It” and a letter from the Chief Scout Executive on “Grooming by a Child Abuser.”
• The BSA develops a camp staff training program, and the two-deep leadership policy, which requires two adult leaders at all Scouting activities, is formally adopted.

1988

• Scouting magazine includes an article titled “Barriers Against Child Sexual Abuse.”

1989

• The BSA produces A Time to Tell, a video that teaches 11- to 16-year-olds the three R’s of Youth Protection—how to recognize, resist, and report child abuse. More than 3,500 copies of the video are distributed in the first year.

1990

• The Boy Scouts of America launches a new version of “Youth Protection Guidelines: Training for Volunteer Leaders and Parents.”
• The Boy Scout Handbook features an insert titled “How to Protect Your Children,” which includes exercises each new Scout is to complete with his parents when he joins Scouting.
• The insert titled “How to Protect Your Children” is also added to the Scoutmaster Handbook.

1991

• The BSA prohibits one-on-one adult and youth activities, and produces It Happened to Me, a video aimed at 7- to 10-year-olds, which is featured in Scouting magazine in an article titled “A Must Film to See.”

1992

• Representatives from Scouting serve as advisers to the U.S. government through participation on the U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect.

1993

• The Boy Scouts of America hosts the first National Child Abuse Prevention Symposium for educational, religious, and other youth-serving organizations.
• The BSA’s director of administration testifies before the U.S. House Judiciary Committee on the Boy Scouts’ views on the national Child Protection Act of 1993, providing background information on the BSA and its Youth Protection program.

1994

• The BSA requires criminal background checks for all professionals and staff who work with youth.
• The BSA updates its Youth Protection Guidelines for Volunteer Leaders and Parents video, addressing how an adult should identify whether a child has been or is being abused, and what the adult should do to protect the child.

1997

• The BSA is an active member of the National Collaboration for Youth in its publication of “Screening Volunteers to Prevent Child Sexual Abuse: A Community Guide for Youth Organizations,” and the BSA’s director of administration is selected as the chair of the National Assembly of National Voluntary Health and Social Welfare Organizations’ Task Force on Child Sexual Abuse.

2001

• The BSA’s Youth Protection comic book series for Cub Scouts is introduced, with the first issue focusing on bullying.

2002

• Scouting magazine features an article highlighting the risk of child sexual abuse and proclaims April as “Youth Protection Month.”

2003

• The BSA begins conducting third-party, computerized criminal background checks on all new adult volunteers and introduces online training: “Youth Protection Guidelines: Training for Adult Leaders and Parents.”

2005

• The BSA revises the insert in the Boy Scout and Cub Scout handbooks. The organization updates and publishes several age-appropriate training materials and launches a new Adult Leader Application that encourages immediate online training for youth protection and other immediate needs.

2007

• The BSA updates It Happened to Me and includes the topic of pornography and suicide in “Personal Safety Awareness” training materials aimed at teenagers.

2008

• The BSA requires all volunteers to go through a full criminal background check.
• Scouting implements youth protection requirements for youth to advance in rank and addresses bullying and cyber-safety.
• The BSA produces a video titled Cub Scout and Boy Scout Youth Protection.

2009

• The BSA addresses the use of cameras, imaging, and digital devices by youth and adults, and updates youth protection materials and guidelines.
• The BSA updates “How to Protect Your Children From Child Abuse: A Parent’s Guide.”
• The Scoutmaster Handbook includes a section on youth protection guidelines referencing BSA youth protection materials, the three R’s of Youth Protection, and BSA policies on youth protection.

2010

• The BSA hires Michael “Mike” Johnson, an internationally recognized expert on child abuse detection and prevention, as youth protection director.
• The BSA makes Youth Protection training mandatory for all registered adult members and requires it to be repeated every two years.
• Parents are advised on the BSA youth membership application that abuse can occur “even in Scouting,” and advises them of Youth Protection training and the two-deep leadership policy.
• The BSA creates a Mandatory Reporting policy, which says that all persons involved in Scouting shall report to local authorities any good-faith suspicion of belief that a child is being or has been physically or sexually abused.

2011

• Scouting launches a new campaign called “Youth Protection Begins With You”™, which underscores the fundamental belief that the protection of youth—in Scouting and in local communities—can be best achieved through the shared involvement of parents, volunteers, leaders, and council staff.
• The BSA establishes an Executive Board–level Youth Protection Committee and names Dr. Jim Wilson chair.

2012

• The BSA initiates the volunteer-led and volunteer-focused Youth Protection Champions program.
• The BSA holds the first National Youth Protection Symposium in Atlanta, Georgia.
• An email address (youth.protection@scouting.org) is established for volunteers to submit questions about youth protection.
• The BSA, supported by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children’s Netsmartz division, rolls out the Internet-safety focused Cyber Chip program for four different age groups. An associated website is launched.

2013

• The BSA holds the second National Youth Protection Symposium in Irving, Texas, with an expanded group of youth protection experts and youth-serving organizations (www.nationalyouthprotectionsymposium.org).

2014

• The anti-bullying Be Kind initiative is launched; campaign materials are provided for use by units, leaders, and youth.