Former Youth Protection Director on the dangers in Scouts BSA

[malraux]

Just now, Eagledad said:

LOL, really! Please expand. 

Barry

His point one that youth on youth abuse and is greatly heightened with large age differentials that we currently see in the scouts BSA program is concerning.

[CynicalScouter]

Just now, Eagledad said:

LOL, really! Please expand. 

Barry

If Boy Scouts of America cannot operate the patrol method in a way that does not result in this level of child sexual abuse, then it has three choices:

1. Continue to operate the patrol method and accept as a given the current level of child sexual abuse and subsequent lawsuits.
2. Modify the patrol method to ensure scout safety. That means no more scout-only activities (as already has occurred with needing two-deep leadership). That means tearing Scouts BSA in half (11-14/15-18).
3. End the patrol method.

I'm happy to hear if you have a 4th option.

 

[Eagledad]

1 minute ago, CynicalScouter said:

If Boy Scouts of America cannot operate the patrol method in a way that does not result in this level of child sexual abuse, then it has three choices:

1. Continue to operate the patrol method and accept as a given the current level of child sexual abuse and subsequent lawsuits.
2. Modify the patrol method to ensure scout safety. That means no more scout-only activities (as already has occurred with needing two-deep leadership). That means tearing Scouts BSA in half (11-14/15-18).
3. End the patrol method.

I'm happy to hear if you have a 4th option.

 

Ah, teenage cub scouts. That's healthy for the culture. Adults will never grow up. 

Barry

[CynicalScouter]

 

7 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

Ah, teenage cub scouts. That's healthy for the culture. Adults will never grow up. 

At the risk of repeating myself: I'm happy to hear if you have a 4th option.

Edited October 12, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[Eagledad]

Is this really a problem? What percent of scouts were abused?

OK, give me some details of how those abuses occurred. You can't fix it if you don't know the problem. 

Ironic really. During the gay debates, nobody wanted to discuss sex abuse risks because they wanted gay youth in scouts really bad. Activist say youth know their sexual desire by the age of six. Is there a safe age to camp with other youth?

The discussion crossed a line away from scouting. Now its about youth overnight stays with other youth. Is shutting down overnight sleep overs healthy for society? Will our grandkids know what a pillow fight was?

 

[CynicalScouter]

9 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

Is this really a problem? What percent of scouts were abused?

The former head of Youth Protection for BSA says it is. You know more than him?

As for percent, BSA made darn sure it will NEVER, EVER release that data. Johnson, who DID see that data, says it is a problem. But again: you know more than him?

But let me ask this: what percentage of sexually abused scouts is acceptable enough to protect your precious, precious patrol method? How many cases of sexual abuse until you believe change should be made? 1%? 10%? 50%?

How many sexually abused scouts are you OK with, in other words, in order to preserve the status quo?

I have my number: zero. Zero scouts should be sacrificed to ensure BSA remains as it was circa 1960 or 1950 or whatever.

Change needs to happen, and it is CLEAR that BSA will not do so of its own volition. Therefore, the court will have to impose it on BSA through the appointment of outside monitor(s).

Johnson wants Congress to act as well. Fine, but in the short term the judge can impose it.

Edited October 12, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[Eagle1993]

4 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

How many sexually abused scouts are you OK with, in other words, in order to preserve the status quo?

I don't think every argument has to go full tilt.  If the expectation is 0 abuse, then end 100% of all youth organizations.  That is likely the only way 0 abuse will be achieved.  So, clearly, any time there is a youth serving organization, there is risk of abuse.  The key is to understand what mitigations can be executed while still preserving the goals of the organization.  I think the questions are valid. 

How & when did the abuse occur.  What other mitigations could have been in place to prevent that abuse?  Lack of training, better screening of volunteers, tenting policies, etc.  I think there could be other answers outside ending Scouts BSA.

That said, I was surprised to hear over 50% of the abuse was caused by other youth.   I expect we could make changes to reduce the risk.  We would need to know more details to really understand mitigations.  I tend to agree that splitting Scouts BSA into two separate age groups could help; however, it could still be worked around (dual meetings) and also negatively impacts scouts.  So, I would look for other mitigations first.

[Eagledad]

5 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

The former head of Youth Protection for BSA says it is. You know more than him?

As for percent, BSA made darn sure it will NEVER, EVER release that data. Johnson, who DID see that data, says it is a problem. But again: you know more than him?

But let me ask this: what percentage of sexually abused scouts is acceptable enough to protect your precious, precious patrol method? How many cases of sexual abuse until you believe change should be made? 1%? 10%? 50%?

How many sexually abused scouts are you OK with, in other words, in order to preserve the status quo?

I have my number: zero. Zero scouts should be sacrificed to ensure BSA remains as it was circa 1960 or 1950 or whatever.

Change needs to happen, and it is CLEAR that BSA will not do so of its own volition. Therefore, the court will have to impose it on BSA through the appointment of outside monitor(s).

Then you really don't know. The future of Youth spending the night with other youth is going to be politically incorrect. And, anyone who was a scout should be shunned for being an abuser.

Barry

[CynicalScouter]

Just now, Eagle1993 said:

How & when did the abuse occur.  What other mitigations could have been in place to prevent that abuse?  Lack of training, better screening of volunteers, tenting policies, etc.  I think there could be other answers outside ending Scouts BSA.

I agree. My broader point is the BSA is a black hole in black box in a black bag. There is precisely ZERO data reported on any of this for the public or researchers outside of those handpicked/cherry picked by BSA.

That's why the Catholic Church and USA Gymnastics got OUTSIDERS to audit and review and PUBLISH for the public and what Johnson is advocating for in terms of BSA.

Unless and until BSA is willing to open up and be 80-90% transparent (we don't need to know victim names, for example, but knowing type of abuse, council, program type, etc.) BSA will never be a credible source.

[Eagle94-A1]

I thought BSA killed the Patrol Method back in 2018 when EVERYTHING, including patrol meetings and activities needed 2 registered adults over 21?

[RememberSchiff]

13 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

As for percent, BSA made darn sure it will NEVER, EVER release that data. Johnson, who DID see that data,

Hopefully, Mr. Johnson brings printouts of that data just as Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen did.

Another $0.02,

Edited October 12, 2021 by RememberSchiff

[CynicalScouter]

1 minute ago, Eagledad said:

Then you really don't know.

Nope, I do not. But when the man in charge of the program for 10 years says "We have a problem" I'll take his expertise over your lack-of-knowledge any day of the week.

[CynicalScouter]

Just now, RememberSchiff said:

Hopefully, Mr. Johnson brings printouts of that data just as Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen did.

Here's another scary possibility: the data doesn't exist. Who knows if BSA is actually keeping numerical track of the number of incidents, data associated with the incidents (unit, council, type of abuse, victim characteristics, abuser characteristics, etc.) or if it is just burying its head in the sand and saying "Everything is fine."

Or it is just cursory: number of incidents. Which is a starting point, but does not allow BSA or anyone to really examine the how/why of the abuse and how/why to stop it.

[CynicalScouter]

4 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

I thought BSA killed the Patrol Method back in 2018 when EVERYTHING, including patrol meetings and activities needed 2 registered adults over 21?

Yep. Let's go back to the good old days of the 1950s and 1960s. Because that worked SO well.

Oh, wait, it didn't. It result in thousands of sexually abused scouts.

 

 

[qwazse]

19 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

... But let me ask this: what percentage of sexually abused scouts is acceptable enough to protect your precious, precious patrol method? How many cases of sexual abuse until you believe change should be made? 1%? 10%? 50%? ...

This is a very, very, dark road that this frame of mind proposes to send the nation's youth down.

All one needs to do is substitute "patrol method" for "nuclear family" and we've sanctioned the state's removal of children from parents to "prevent" whatever ill-effects some classes of parents may have on their offspring.

The fundamental problem: no matter how one dredges for cases in one sector, one fails to prove anything. Mainly because one hasn't dredged other institutions, including nuclear families, in the same way. So what if cases are reduced by 1/2 or 3/4? If the trend nationwide is decreasing in the same manner, one would be hard pressed to credit some internal policy change.

Another harsh reality: if we really want to promote transparent reporting, we have to remove the threat of litigation. More carrots, fewer sticks.