Former Youth Protection Director on the dangers in Scouts BSA

[T2Eagle]

11 hours ago, johnsch322 said:

The rape of a child by an adult in the 40's 50's 60's and 70's was a crime, considered as deviant behavior and was not blamed on the child.

The first part of your statement is correct, the latter is sadly not.  Think of excuses like "what was she (he) wearing"  "how were they behaving"  "why didn't they say no, fight harder, scream more" etc.  "Why did they lore an otherwise good man to do this"  Imagine if the victim happened to be gay. 

The amount and ubiquitousness of victim blaming in the not even distant past was incredible, and sadly still can exist today.

[CynicalScouter]

31 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

But i have experience with situations that were filed under the category of abuse that wouldn't come under the sex abuse most folks are thinking in these discussions. I would really like to know the real numbers

Which is why the Catholic Church, for example, reports two numbers annually:

1. Total allegations (anyone can claim or file anything) and
2. Status: Unable to be proven, Substantiated,  Investigation ongoing, Other (e.g. referred to provincial, unknown), Unsubstantiated

https://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/child-and-youth-protection/upload/2019-Annual-Report-Final.pdf

So both numbers are "real" and "real" important to know.

 

[ThenNow]

14 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

14 hours ago, HelpfulTracks said:

Not likely to find that. Document retention requirements were not as robust back then, and even the current strongest requirements would not require maintaining a document that long. 

But my understanding is that BSA started indemnifying CO's around '73 or '76 or so. 

I've been able to track down annual charter agreements from the 1920s and 1950s just via google. I'm sure a circa 1970 charter agreement is sitting on some shelf in BSA HQ or in some filing cabinet somewhere.

My abuse started in ‘72 and ended when I left in ‘79. I’m just looking for some of the lingo about CO role and responsibilities. I have some, but don’t want to misstate, misstep, misfire or misrepresent. 

[HelpfulTracks]

12 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said:

Thanks kindly.  That will help.  I still have all of the merit badge cards that were in my scrapbook, so I will go over it.

One more thing. 

NESA used to have a database that you could look up Eagle Scouts, it was being reworked before the layoffs. Unfortunately, they did not finish, so it has never come back online. 

However, NESA prints annuals FREQUENTLY (fundraiser). It seems a I get a notice every year to update my info and by the latest version. 

Usually, there are one or two around the lobby at the Scout Service Center, you could look it up there. I have also seen some older editions in some libraries. 

It used to be you could call or email national for the details, but I think all the customer service people for volunteers have been laid off. 

[CynicalScouter]

11 minutes ago, DeaconLance said:

I guess I am flabbergasted that after all this the BSA and every state isn’t requiring background checks and clearances.

BSA does, but the argument is that they are cursory and useless.

1) BSA does run a Criminal Background Check (CBC) when an application is submitted.

2) Chartered Organizations are SUPPOSED to be talking to, interviewing, and getting to know the people they are signing off on. The Adult Application even says

Quote

I [the Chartered Organization Head or Representative] have reviewed this application and the responses to any questions answered “Yes,” and have made any follow-up inquiries necessary to be satisfied that the applicant possesses the moral, educational, and emotional qualities to be an adult leader in the BSA.

How many actually do? Close to zero. My COR wouldn't know any of my ASMs to look at.

And the references checks from the adult applications? In my council those get farmed out to volunteers. So we have untrained volunteers running reference checks and are shocked, SHOCKED to find abusers still make it in?

Edited October 13, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[johnsch322]

It is amazing to that yesterday 4 experts in the field of CSA spoke out about CSA in BSA and today members of this forum are trying their best to minimalize what was said.  What would it take to make some you believe this is still a big issue?

[HelpfulTracks]

2 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

My abuse started in ‘72 and ended when I left in ‘79. I’m just looking for some of the lingo about CO role and responsibilities. I have some, but don’t want to misstate, misstep, misfire or misrepresent. 

I did a few Google searches and did not come up with anything. Doesn't mean its not there, it could be, just buried in a minutia of metadata, particularly if it is a photo and not a searchable page or document. 

[CynicalScouter]

1 minute ago, johnsch322 said:

It is amazing to that yesterday 4 experts in the field of CSA spoke out about CSA in BSA and today members of this forum are trying their best to minimalize what was said.  What would it take to make some you believe this is still a big issue?

It is part and parcel of BSA: they have convinced themselves they are absolute perfect.

I can recall BSA in testimony/letter submitted to Congress when there were demands that ALL volunteers be subject to Criminal Background Checks (CBCs) that BSA was sure this wasn't needed, would cost too much, and the existing BSA YPT was fine.

Several dozen instances of abuse later, CBCs were put in place.

[Eagledad]

3 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

It is amazing to that yesterday 4 experts in the field of CSA spoke out about CSA in BSA and today members of this forum are trying their best to minimalize what was said.  What would it take to make some you believe this is still a big issue?

Data. Proof. 

It's not minimalizing, it's rationalizing. To my families frustration, I'm a black and white person. Some of us have many years experience at many levels of scouting. Broad statements that don't make sense against experience requires details before tearing apart a proven program just to appease cynics. 

Barry

[johnsch322]

Just now, Eagledad said:

It's not minimalizing, it's rationalizing.

This is where you are correct.  You are rationalizing that everything you believe must be true.  

 

1 minute ago, Eagledad said:

Broad statements that don't make sense against experience requires details before tearing apart a proven program just to appease cynics

Yesterday one of the gentleman was quoting statistics.  It is known that males that are abused don't speak out until their mid 30's so the majority of guys talking about their abuse now had it occur 20 to 30 years ago.  if you were abused in 2010 it will be 2030 0r later before you hear the abuse in that period.  And no it is not a proven program...listen to the experts.

[CynicalScouter]

8 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

Data. Proof. 

Which BSA has done literally everything in its power to keep away from inspection and review by anyone not within BSA and, according to Johnson, even within BSA.

That's consistent with what happened when BSA withheld the data on the prevalence of sexual abuse form Meringer when he did his report/study on the subject.

You cannot have it both ways where: a) BSA is allowed to hide the data and then claim b) that because there is no data that proves there is no problem.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

[Eagledad]

1 minute ago, johnsch322 said:

And no it is not a proven program...listen to the experts.

Patrol Method has proven itself over 100  years all over the world. To break that up because of a very broad blanket statement that that 50% of the BSA abuse cases are from youth would be ridiculous.

Barry

[elitts]

5 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

It is amazing to that yesterday 4 experts in the field of CSA spoke out about CSA in BSA and today members of this forum are trying their best to minimalize what was said.  What would it take to make some you believe this is still a big issue?

If you are talking about people questioning the "50% of abuse is youth on youth" statement, that's because history tells us that when someone gives a statistic, you can't know anything about what it means until you understand the definitions being used; particularly in the area of sexual abuse and rape where there is a distinct tendency among some advocates to keep expanding definitions to make their chosen issue seem more dire than it might be.

I have no illusions about the BSA and their overall level of competence.  Completely separate from this, any organization that publishes a guide to safe tool use saying a 7 year old can't use a hand-held paint brush safely gets nothing but contempt from me.  But I've also seen situations as with the study on sexual abuse of women in college where the definitions end up SO broad the resulting number is meaningless.

[CynicalScouter]

11 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

a proven program

Proven, according to whom?

What outside researcher has EVER done a review of it to see if it really works? BSA has refused any such review and , per Johnson, even stopped internal reviews.

This is what I cannot wait for in terms of the TCC plan. An outside, external evaluation of the BSA YPT plan.

I suspect what is going to be found out is that the BSA YPT system isn't all that great but BSA has convinced itself and others it is based on wishful thinking.

[Eagledad]

1 minute ago, CynicalScouter said:

You cannot have it both ways where: a) BSA is allowed to hide the data and then claim b) that because there is no data that proves there is no problem.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

My experienced opinion is that the 50% youth sex abuse statement doesn't make sense. And any suggestion to changing the program based on that statement is absurd.. 

Barry