Former Youth Protection Director on the dangers in Scouts BSA

[johnsch322]

25 minutes ago, HelpfulTracks said:

Again, not sure why you quoted me, particularly on joking comment about dirty cloths at camp.

But to answer you.

Hardly. 

The CDC which has been referenced here and in yesterdays presser as good source on prevent CSA see Risqué jokes as inappropriate and harmful. 

Accordingly, it is entirely plausible that that makes up some portion of the 50%. 

In addition Vieth list items that are considered developmentally appropriate sexual behaviors in adolescence and teenagers, that would violate BSA policy and send some parents into a tizzy, like sexually explicit talk with peers, Obscenity/jokes, foreplay, even intercourse with consenting partner.

I don't think you seriously believe all of those are on the same level, let alone on par with sexual assault. 

Not to mention, what constitutes that 50%, what ages, age difference, locations and situations are involved would be required to determine how to prevent them in the future. 

 

As I said quoted wrong post. Post I tried to quote was gone. Yes obscenity and jokes might be inappropriate and harmful but not child sexual abuse. I don’t think MJ was tearing up because he could not prevent sexual jokes and obscenity or consensual sex. 

Edited October 13, 2021 by johnsch322

[HelpfulTracks]

Just now, johnsch322 said:

As I said quoted wrong post. Post I tried to quote was gone. 

No worries. This thread has been a flurry of post over the last couple of hours. I am still trying to make sense of all the back and forth, and who was replying to whom about what. 

[InquisitiveScouter]

1 hour ago, ThenNow said:

What do you mean by, “showers/showering at summer camp”? 

I think it just means knowing which building is the shower house...at least that's what it seems to be for our Scouts.

We incentivize the behavior we want...take a shower on Wednesday, get an ice cream!  And yes, for some we have to define "shower"... but never "ice cream"

[HelpfulTracks]

3 hours ago, Eagledad said:

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

 

2 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

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.

The Patrol Method is a mechanism to teach responsibility, leadership, team work, character an more. You will not find any empirical evidence of its success or failure, because there are no empirical measures. In fact empirically measuring a patrol based on milestones that can be checked off, is almost certainly a recipe to fail. 

YP is a mechanism to protect and safe guard our youth. Empirical measurement is much easier as failures are glaring. 

These are two separate mechanisms with different success factors and different measures of success. 

Because one is broken, does not mean the other is. 

If you believe Patrol Method IS the problem, the it should be easy enough to prove, as most troops don't really use the Patrol Method anymore. 

[elitts]

Normally I wouldn't discuss user issues, but given his profile pic and signature I'm going to make an exception:

Regardless of the impression given by his profile picture and signature line, CynicalScouter is NOT banned from the forum, or even blocked from posting.  He merely received a 1 week penalty that requires his posts be approved by a moderator before they are visible as a result of posting behavior that was un-scoutlike and very near abusive/spamming.

Edited October 13, 2021 by elitts

[elitts]

2 hours ago, johnsch322 said:

And what is wrong with having zero tolerance?  Do you have a figure above zero that would be tolerable?  would you be able to get a room together of 100 youth and tell 1,2,3,4, or 5 of them that they would be sexually abused but that is within our tolerance levels.  Could you stand in front of me and say sorry about your abuse but it is within what we expected for abuse levels?

You are talking about something different.  Zero Tolerance Youth Protection policies refer to requirements that any and all infractions be handled officially and penalized fully, regardless of circumstances.  The problem with policies of that nature is that you pretty much always end up with innocent people getting caught up in formal actions over unintentional mistakes.  Examples abound but include things like school suspensions or expulsions for forgetting you have a jackknife in your coat pocket after a weekend camping or kids being penalized for using "finger guns" when playing on the playground.

Completely different from having "zero tolerance for CSA".

[elitts]

11 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

I think it just means knowing which building is the shower house...at least that's what it seems to be for our Scouts.

We incentivize the behavior we want...take a shower on Wednesday, get an ice cream!  And yes, for some we have to define "shower"... but never "ice cream"

That's actually a brilliant idea.  and it's definitely happening next summer at our camp.  Maybe on Tuesday and Friday (for the car ride home).

[johnsch322]

2 minutes ago, elitts said:

You are talking about something different.  Zero Tolerance Youth Protection policies refer to requirements that any and all infractions be handled officially and penalized fully, regardless of circumstances.  The problem with policies of that nature is that you pretty much always end up with innocent people getting caught up in formal actions over unintentional mistakes.  Examples abound but include things like school suspensions or expulsions for forgetting you have a jackknife in your coat pocket after a weekend camping or kids being penalized for using "finger guns" when playing on the playground.

Completely different from having "zero tolerance for CSA".

I think I understand what you are saying but can we agree to having zero tolerance for CSA. Please. 

[Eagledad]

2 hours ago, yknot said:

Johnson is right to point this kind of thing out and it has to be reviewed in context of patrols and other situations where we put kids under the supervision of other kids. I've said this before but these kids are handed these roles with little formal training to help them understand how to be responsible for other kids or with any vetting of whether they should be in that role in the first place. Other youth organizations do this but scouting just assumes they can.  

 

This is taken out of context. What formal education are you talking about that other youth organizations do in the context of which you are referring? Certainly not other scouting organizations. I could go on with 4H, youth sports, and other school activities, of which my kids had plenty of experience, and none who got abuse training of any kind. What other youth organizations are doing the training? 

Just because Scouting uses youth leadership as the method toward moral and ethical growth doesn't mean scouting assumes youth can lead. Most other youth programs don't even use the leadership experience as a process for growth. But, most scouting programs have a process for developing maturity so scouts can eventually lead.

While I believe that scouts under the age 14 shouldn't be given serious leadership responsibilities, it's not because they aren't trained. If anything, Troops tend to over train them to the point that the training has little influence on their experience. But, even at that, most troop leaders watch their youth pretty closely so they can measure their performance to guide improvement. 

I can't imagine how an adult leader, much less a youth leader could mitigate your bathroom sex example. One thing about the sex drive, if there is a will, there is a way.

Barry

[HelpfulTracks]

2 hours ago, elitts said:

In a world where a large chunk of the US population still doesn't think kids should be taught anything about sex other than "Don't do it" I am certain there's parents who would assume the ONLY way such a conversation could happen would be if their "precious innocent child" was having knowledge of sex forced upon them by another youth.  This is how we get prosecutions for rape when 13-15 year olds are having consensual sex.

It is quite amazing what some parents think their children don't know, won't do, won't think about. And not just on a sexual level. I have had parents tell me "my baby would never". Often times their baby is among the worst offenders. 

Admittedly, I approached those "talks" with my own children with a bit of trepidation, but I had them none the less. Sex, drugs, alcohol et al.  My children were horrified their dad was talking to them about such subjects. I often wondered how much of what I said sunk in, so I will on occasion revisit the subjects. My oldest is in college and I still have those talks with him, though he cringes less now that he has been exposed to more of the world. 

[Eagledad]

5 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

I think I understand what you are saying but can we agree to having zero tolerance for CSA. Please. 

One of my examples was my wife found two girl scouts (10 years old) having a heavy consensual discussion of sex. She was advised by the leadership to call the police. In your Zero tolerance world, who is in trouble? Don't say that doesn't count, she was advised by their Scout Executive equivalent to call the police. Somebodies life is going to change when the police are called. Who do you want it to be?

Barry

[elitts]

1 minute ago, johnsch322 said:

I think I understand what you are saying but can we agree to having zero tolerance for CSA. Please. 

Absolutely.  Where I get hesitant with zero tolerance is in areas where they violated the letter of the policy but not the spirit.  For example, I'm the equipment coordinator for our troop.  I said to the QM and Asst. "Hey, lets go out to the trailer to do something" then we headed off with me in the lead.  But on the way, the Asst. (unbeknownst to me) decided to go to the bathroom and I didn't notice cause I was lost in my own thoughts about what we were about to organize.  I was out there alone, in the dusk, with just one scout for a good 5-10 minutes before I realized there wasn't enough noise outside the trailer for 2 scouts and checked and I sent him back to wait till the other guy was ready.

Now, a rational look at it would make it clear I hadn't intended to violate no one-on-one, but in a "zero tolerance world" that would result in me being referred to the SE as a YP violator and then who knows from there.

But if you were talking about someone clearly attempting to violate YP rules by say, inviting a single scout over to his house without anyone else being present, I'm all for kicking them out and even referring them to the police for good measure.  Regardless of whether or not any abuse happens.

 

[johnsch322]

4 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

One of my examples was my wife found two girl scouts (10 years old) having a heavy consensual discussion of sex. She was advised by the leadership to call the police. In your Zero tolerance world, who is in trouble? Don't say that doesn't count, she was advised by their Scout Executive equivalent to call the police. Somebodies life is going to change when the police are called. Who do you want it to be?

Barry

As I don’t view 2 10 year olds having a conversation about sex as Child Sexual Abuse I think the SE is at fault. 

[johnsch322]

6 minutes ago, elitts said:

Absolutely.  Where I get hesitant with zero tolerance is in areas where they violated the letter of the policy but not the spirit.  For example, I'm the equipment coordinator for our troop.  I said to the QM and Asst. "Hey, lets go out to the trailer to do something" then we headed off with me in the lead.  But on the way, the Asst. (unbeknownst to me) decided to go to the bathroom and I didn't notice cause I was lost in my own thoughts about what we were about to organize.  I was out there alone, in the dusk, with just one scout for a good 5-10 minutes before I realized there wasn't enough noise outside the trailer for 2 scouts and checked and I sent him back to wait till the other guy was ready.

Now, a rational look at it would make it clear I hadn't intended to violate no one-on-one, but in a "zero tolerance world" that would result in me being referred to the SE as a YP violator and then who knows from there.

But if you were talking about someone clearly attempting to violate YP rules by say, inviting a single scout over to his house without anyone else being present, I'm all for kicking them out and even referring them to the police for good measure.  Regardless of whether or not any abuse happens.

 

Exactly 

[Eagledad]

2 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

As I don’t view 2 10 year olds having a conversation about sex as Child Sexual Abuse I think the SE is at fault. 

That SE is only doing what you are demanding here on the forum. Can you imagine the harm she could have created because of her Zero tolerance position.

More often than not, Zero tolerance allows folks who don't want to deal with individual incidents because they don't have the skills and it scares them. 

Barry