Debate over 72 hour rule - spun from bankruptcy thread

[elitts]

45 minutes ago, yknot said:

That's the loophole that people use. I think some common sense has to apply when you have an individual adult walking over to the health office or some other such task. On the other hand, people use that loophole to have only one adult in the camp site or to go off on a hike or take a bunch of kids to a swimming hole, etc., The rationale will be that there are "dozens" of registered adults present and the entire camp facility is the activity. The issue with the 72 hour rule is that it can inadvertently result in an unregistered adult being that sole individual supervising the camp site. I think if you are engaged in any kid related task, you need two adults. Not glimpsed walking through the trees or somewhere in the vicinity but where the kids and other adult are. Most abuse happens at either summer camp or on camp outs so if you want to apply stringent YPT where it will do the most good, do it there. I am frequently incredulous at the people who will leap out of an open door troop meeting if they find themselves 50 feet away but alone with a scout or two in a room for 30 seconds, but will be belligerent about taking a group of scouts for a day hike at summer camp because "camp is the activity". If YPT is supposed to be based on actual safety measures, the logic in those situations does not track. Then we are simply doing YPT for show, not effect, if it's somehow OK to be hiking alone with kids at summer camp.  IMO.

That's not a loophole, that's the designed purpose of the rule.  Two-Deep leadership is about emergency response, not protecting kids from the adults.  You regularly conflate these even though they serve separate purposes.  Most critically, Two-Deep Leadership does NOT require that the 2 adults be within sight of each other.  If one is sleeping and one is awake, Two-Deep is maintained.  If one is running to grab a soda at the trading post (a minute or three away) and one is in camp, Two-Deep Leadership is maintained.  If one runs to the store 20 minutes away, Two-Deep has not been maintained because the second leader is not accessible in the case of an emergency.

You can "think" there should be two adults present and watching at any kid related task, but that's not now, nor has it ever been the rule, and your thinking that's the way it should be doesn't mean everyone else is exploiting a loophole.

I will grant though that a hike can be a grey area depending on where the hike goes and how far the scouts would be from help in an emergency.

Edited October 26, 2021 by elitts

[yknot]

2 minutes ago, elitts said:

That's not a loophole, that's the designed purpose of the rule.  Two-Deep leadership is about emergency response, not protecting kids from the adults.  You regularly conflate these even though they serve separate purposes.  Most critically, Two-Deep Leadership does NOT require that the 2 adults be within sight of each other.  If one is sleeping and one is awake, Two-Deep is maintained.  If one is running to grab a soda at the trading post (a minute or three away) and one is in camp, Two-Deep Leadership is maintained.  If one runs to the store 20 minutes away, Two-Deep has not been maintained because the second leader is not accessible in the case of an emergency.

You can "think" there should be two adults present and watching at any kid related task, but that's not now, nor has it ever been the rule, and your thinking that's the way it should be doesn't mean everyone else is exploiting a loophole.

I will grant though that a hike can be a grey area depending on where the hike goes and how far the scouts would be from help in an emergency.

I've heard that explanation before from some in scouting but every other youth organization that employs two deep leadership does so for youth protection reasons, not merely safety as you describe. It's to have two adults present as a check and balance against one another and thus protect the child. I think these are the kinds of issues that Michael Johnson was referring to. No one on one requires that two adults be present. If safety alone was the consideration, then being alone in an open door room with a scout or scouts in a building where other scout activities are taking place would not violate YP, but it does.  Furthermore, from a liability standpoint, it seems more than problematic.  

[T2Eagle]

17 minutes ago, yknot said:

If safety alone was the consideration, then being alone in an open door room with a scout or scouts in a building where other scout activities are taking place would not violate YP, but it does.  Furthermore, from a liability standpoint, it seems more than problematic.  

Being alone in a room with other scouts where other scout activities are taking place is not a violation of YPT.  If there is a troop meeting, and the scouts break out in patrols and one adult is in a room with each patrol that's fine.  The rule is "no one on one contact".  You never want to be alone, that is just yourself, and one scout.  But if you are the only adult but with multiple scouts at a scout activity that satisfies the two deep leadership rules, that is there are other leaders present but not necessarily in the room with you that's OK.

One-on-one contact between adult leaders and youth members is prohibited both inside and outside of Scouting.

• In situations requiring a personal conference, the meeting is to be conducted with the knowledge and in view of other adults and/or youth

Clearly, if you can have a personal conference that can be held "in view of other youth", you can be in a group setting with a group of youth.  The same logic applies to explain being able to drive a number, but never a single, scout (except your own child).

[elitts]

3 hours ago, yknot said:

 No one on one requires that two adults be present. If safety alone was the consideration, then being alone in an open door room with a scout or scouts in a building where other scout activities are taking place would not violate YP, but it does.  Furthermore, from a liability standpoint, it seems more than problematic.  

"No one-on-one contact" has NEVER required two adults be present for anything.  Here's the Scouting.com article that explicitly describes the purposes of the two rules and states clearly that you do not need 2 adults supervising at all times, as long as they are present at the event.  It even explicitly states that while sending one adult off to hike with a group of scouts isn't the preferred option, it's not a violation of the rules.

 

3 hours ago, T2Eagle said:

Being alone in a room with other scouts where other scout activities are taking place is not a violation of YPT.  If there is a troop meeting, and the scouts break out in patrols and one adult is in a room with each patrol that's fine.  The rule is "no one on one contact".  You never want to be alone, that is just yourself, and one scout.  But if you are the only adult but with multiple scouts at a scout activity that satisfies the two deep leadership rules, that is there are other leaders present but not necessarily in the room with you that's OK.

One-on-one contact between adult leaders and youth members is prohibited both inside and outside of Scouting.

• In situations requiring a personal conference, the meeting is to be conducted with the knowledge and in view of other adults and/or youth

Clearly, if you can have a personal conference that can be held "in view of other youth", you can be in a group setting with a group of youth.  The same logic applies to explain being able to drive a number, but never a single, scout (except your own child).

Just wanna be clear, being the only adult with multiple scouts satisfies "No one-on-one contact" not "Two Deep Leadership".

[yknot]

4 hours ago, T2Eagle said:

Being alone in a room with other scouts where other scout activities are taking place is not a violation of YPT.  If there is a troop meeting, and the scouts break out in patrols and one adult is in a room with each patrol that's fine.  The rule is "no one on one contact".  You never want to be alone, that is just yourself, and one scout.  But if you are the only adult but with multiple scouts at a scout activity that satisfies the two deep leadership rules, that is there are other leaders present but not necessarily in the room with you that's OK.

One-on-one contact between adult leaders and youth members is prohibited both inside and outside of Scouting.

• In situations requiring a personal conference, the meeting is to be conducted with the knowledge and in view of other adults and/or youth

Clearly, if you can have a personal conference that can be held "in view of other youth", you can be in a group setting with a group of youth.  The same logic applies to explain being able to drive a number, but never a single, scout (except your own child).

 

1 hour ago, elitts said:

"No one-on-one contact" has NEVER required two adults be present for anything.  Here's the Scouting.com article that explicitly describes the purposes of the two rules and states clearly that you do not need 2 adults supervising at all times, as long as they are present at the event.  It even explicitly states that while sending one adult off to hike with a group of scouts isn't the preferred option, it's not a violation of the rules.

 

Just wanna be clear, being the only adult with multiple scouts satisfies "No one-on-one contact" not "Two Deep Leadership".

Where I am no one on one means no one adult with any amount of scouts, unless driving with at least one other scout. I'm not sure everyone interprets the policies the way you two are. Certainly you can have a one on one with a scout in a corner of a room in view of others but another adult has to be in the room, not somewhere in the building. I'm not clear at all how the interpretation you follow provides either no one on one or two deep youth protection. 

[DuctTape]

blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2018/01/19/whats-the-difference-between-two-deep-leadership-and-no-one-on-one-contact/amp/

[yknot]

19 minutes ago, DuctTape said:

blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2018/01/19/whats-the-difference-between-two-deep-leadership-and-no-one-on-one-contact/amp/

Thank you. That is how I interpret as well although useful to note that even that is now out of date in some aspects. 

[qwazse]

@yknot, this summer we had several registered adults attend our council’s summer camp. Two deep, check. One evening, I shadowed two scouts on their first orienteering course. No one-on-one contact, check.

To work the course, we had to check in at the program hall and sign out and in. This confirmed that we were maintaining YP per current standards. Plus, it made it easy to log our time.

This is the proper and correct interpretation of the G2SS.

[elitts]

15 hours ago, yknot said:

Where I am no one on one means no one adult with any amount of scouts, unless driving with at least one other scout. I'm not sure everyone interprets the policies the way you two are. Certainly you can have a one on one with a scout in a corner of a room in view of others but another adult has to be in the room, not somewhere in the building. I'm not clear at all how the interpretation you follow provides either no one on one or two deep youth protection. 

I'm sure there are plenty of people who don't understand the rules and some places that have decided to implement stricter versions of the rules, but that doesn't change the fact that what you've described here isn't how the BSA rules are meant to be applied. 

14 hours ago, yknot said:

Thank you. That is how I interpret as well although useful to note that even that is now out of date in some aspects. 

You say this blog post is how you interpret things.  Here is a notable passage:
 

Quote

 

But there might be moments when just one leader is present with two or more Scouts. That’s fine, as long as the situation doesn’t involve one adult and one youth. (Of course, if we’re talking about a Scout with his or her parent/guardian, that’s always OK.)

For example, let’s say Troop 451 is driving to a campout. There are nine Scouts and three adults on the trip. The first SUV might have two adults and five Scouts. The other would then have one adult and four Scouts. Is this a “two-deep leadership” violation? No. (I covered this back in 2015.)

What about if there are only two adults present on a campout of eight Scouts, and one group wants to go hiking while the other stays at camp to fish?

While Youth Protection policies don’t expressly forbid it, it’s not the recommended approach because of health and safety concerns. What if the adult on the hike gets injured? What if the adult back at camp has an emergency? In those situations, it would be helpful to have a second adult present. Many troops in that situation would want at least four leaders: two to go on the hike and two to stay at camp.

 

The article makes it clear the BSA would PREFER to always have 2 adults present whenever there is adult:scout interactions, but it isn't a requirement.  And if the option is available, I'd agree with keeping adults paired as much as possible.  But it's important that people understand that 1 adult with multiple scouts isn't actually breaking a rule so we don't end up with local SEs dealing with large numbers of YP violation reports where no violation exists.

[malraux]

1 hour ago, elitts said:

I'm sure there are plenty of people who don't understand the rules and some places that have decided to implement stricter versions of the rules, but that doesn't change the fact that what you've described here isn't how the BSA rules are meant to be applied. 

You say this blog post is how you interpret things.  Here is a notable passage:
 

The article makes it clear the BSA would PREFER to always have 2 adults present whenever there is adult:scout interactions, but it isn't a requirement.  And if the option is available, I'd agree with keeping adults paired as much as possible.  But it's important that people understand that 1 adult with multiple scouts isn't actually breaking a rule so we don't end up with local SEs dealing with large numbers of YP violation reports where no violation exists.

Especially as the current standard is that you must follow ypt guidelines inside and outside of scouting. Its not practical to always have a registered adult buddy outside of scouting.

[yknot]

8 hours ago, elitts said:

I'm sure there are plenty of people who don't understand the rules and some places that have decided to implement stricter versions of the rules, but that doesn't change the fact that what you've described here isn't how the BSA rules are meant to be applied. 

You say this blog post is how you interpret things.  Here is a notable passage:
 

The article makes it clear the BSA would PREFER to always have 2 adults present whenever there is adult:scout interactions, but it isn't a requirement.  And if the option is available, I'd agree with keeping adults paired as much as possible.  But it's important that people understand that 1 adult with multiple scouts isn't actually breaking a rule so we don't end up with local SEs dealing with large numbers of YP violation reports where no violation exists.

One adult leading multiple scouts on a hike IS breaking the rule. 

This is what I'm reading in this article:

"While similar to two deep leadership in some ways, "no one on one" specifically states that adult/youth interaction is not appropriate without another adult -- preferably a youth protection trained leader -- being present." Obviously, this article predates the registered leader requirement. 

There is also this from the FAQs on scouting.org: 

"Adults should not be alone with scouts who are not their children." 

There is also this under the Adult Supervision section of the Youth Protection guidelines: 

"Notwithstanding the minimum leadership requirements, age and program appropriate supervision must always be provided." Program appropriate is two deep and no one on one. It is impossible to provide two deep and no one on one unless two adults are in the same physical proximity as a scout or scouts. 

There is also just the common sense aspect of it. How is the convention of a second adult going to protect a child from abuse if they are not ... present? 

[malraux]

Quote

Adult Supervision

Two registered adult leaders 21 years of age or over are required at all Scouting activities, including meetings. There must be a registered female adult leader 21 years of age or over in every unit serving females. A registered female adult leader 21 years of age or over must be present for any activity involving female youth. Notwithstanding the minimum leader requirements, age- and program-appropriate supervision must always be provided. 

All adults accompanying a Scouting unit who are present at the activity for 72 total hours or more must be registered as leaders. The 72 hours need not be consecutive.

One-on-one contact between adult leaders and youth members is prohibited both inside and outside of Scouting.

Which part of this rule is a leader leading a hike with multiple scouts breaking? Assuming there are other leaders elsewhere at a campout or other event wherein hiking is one part of the total activity.

It does get kinda fuzzy defining what counts as a scouting activity when a campout has multiple elements, I'll admit. But there is no requirement to have multiple adults always together under the current rules (though it might be a good idea to change that). There's a difference between should and must language.

Edited October 27, 2021 by malraux

[elitts]

36 minutes ago, yknot said:

One adult leading multiple scouts on a hike IS breaking the rule.

 Try reading all of the article instead of ignoring the parts that don't support your position.  You are currently arguing that a lone adult is breaking the rules even though the author references THIS EXACT SITUATION by saying:

What about if there are only two adults present on a campout of eight Scouts, and one group wants to go hiking while the other stays at camp to fish?

While Youth Protection policies don’t expressly forbid it, it’s not the recommended approach because of health and safety concerns.

36 minutes ago, yknot said:

This is what I'm reading in this article:

"While similar to two deep leadership in some ways, "no one on one" specifically states that adult/youth interaction is not appropriate without another adult -- preferably a youth protection trained leader -- being present." Obviously, this article predates the registered leader requirement. 

That's either poor phrasing or a typo.  I inserted the missing text for you.  ["no one-on-one" specifically states that one-on-one (inserted text) adult/youth interaction is not appropriate without another adult...]  Since several points earlier in the article explicitly state that there ARE times when adult/youth interactions are appropriate as long as another scout is there.

Quote

There is also this from the FAQs on scouting.org: 

"Adults should not be alone with scouts who are not their children." 

You understand what "alone" means right? 

a·lone

/əˈlōn/

Learn to pronounce

 

adjective

adjective: alone

1. having no one else present.

   "she was alone that evening"

    

So, by definition,  if multiple scouts are present, an adult is not "alone" with with any scout.

Quote

"Notwithstanding the minimum leadership requirements, age and program appropriate supervision must always be provided." Program appropriate is two deep and no one on one. It is impossible to provide two deep and no one on one unless two adults are in the same physical proximity as a scout or scouts

No, that's not at all what they are talking about.   "Program appropriate supervision" means that you have someone knowledgeable enough about the subject matter to provide appropriate supervision.  ie: a Lifeguard when swimming, a climbing instructor when climbing.

"Age appropriate supervision" means having the correct ratio of adults to youth depending on the age of the scouts.  ie: Lions and Tigers must have a parent/guardian present.  Cubs at summer camp must have a youth:adult ratio of no more than X scouts per adult.

You can tell that this is what they are talking about because "Program appropriate supervision" must vary depending on the program and "age appropriate supervision" must vary depending on the age of the scouts.  Otherwise they are using meaningless descriptors to talk about the types of supervision needed.

Edited October 27, 2021 by elitts

[T2Eagle]

one ≠ five,

therefore

one on one ≠ one on five.

If I can spend five hours with five scouts --- and no other adult -- in my vehicle on the way to a campout, there can be no logical explanation for not being able to spend twenty minutes in one classroom in our building while the other adults are in the room next door with the other five scouts.

The danger in claiming something is a rule when it's not, especially if it's a rule that doesn't make sense or fulfill the purpose of rules is that it leads to a waste of valuable time enforcing something that shouldn't be enforced, and more importantly undermines the following of real and important rules.  

Edited October 27, 2021 by T2Eagle

[yknot]

5 hours ago, elitts said:

Try reading all of the article instead of ignoring the parts that don't support your position.  

You do see that you are doing the exact same thing? 

 

5 hours ago, elitts said:

That's either poor phrasing or a typo.  I inserted the missing text for you.  ["no one-on-one" specifically states that one-on-one (inserted text) adult/youth interaction is not appropriate without another adult...]  Since several points earlier in the article explicitly state that there ARE times when adult/youth interactions are appropriate as long as another scout is there.

You are unilaterally making up language on your own here that is not in this article. I quoted the article exactly, aside from punctuation, in my comment. You are claiming because the statement disagrees with what your interpretation of what one on one means that it must be... wrong? ...  So this article is somehow wrong on that but right on other things that agree with what you think? 

 

5 hours ago, elitts said:

You understand what "alone" means right? 

a·lone

/əˈlōn/

Learn to pronounce

 

adjective

adjective: alone

1. having no one else present.

   "she was alone that evening"

    

   So, by definition,  if multiple scouts are present, an adult is not "alone" with with any scout.

    

The below statement, also from the same article, contradicts your interpretation of alone:

Question: One adult with two or more scouts. 

BOS response: That depends on the situation. For example, traveling to and from program activity, scouting meetings, and especially outside of scouting it is not a good practice to have one adult with two scouts, as the sexual abuser can and will use this as an opportunity to have singular access to scouts. 

Clearly, BOS considers travel, scout meetings, and outside of scouting situations in which an adult can be considered "alone" with a scout even if another scout is present. Clearly, BSA seems to contradict itself.  But if you don't go with the most definitive language on the topic, that's an awful lot like a loophole.