Adult leadership requirement change - female

[InquisitiveScouter]

2 minutes ago, HashTagScouts said:

Previous unit I was with, I registered as an ASM when my son joined the troop. Most meetings and campouts, there would be 8+ of us there that were identified to scouts/parents as ASMs. Second year my son and I were there several folks who were Committee wanted to step down, as their sons had aged out several years prior. CC asked a few parents if they would register to join the Committee, and only 1 agreed. CC asked if I would switch from ASM to Committee- I agreed, would still be registered and could still go along on campouts, so no big deal. Then we hit re-charter time, and Committee meeting discussed youth who were on the roster that we assumed would not be re-chartering (the usual "we haven't seen Fred since March" type of conversation). Then I saw the adult roster, and saw we only had about 1/3 of those "ASMs" on the charter. I had to question that, and the response was they are registered as MBCs because they really didn't come to everything, so why should they pay the fees. When I volunteered to be a part of the IOLS training team for the district, several of those "MBC ASMs" had looked at me sideways and couldn't understand either a) what IOLs was, and/or b) why would any adult go through IOLS. After seeing that adult roster, I understood then why these folks were so confused about IOLS. SM specific training? Nope, foreign concept. The unit ran because SM Tom knows what he is doing and he tells us what to do, so why do we need to need to go through training.   

We used this scheme before it became "illegal."

Also, in our state (PA), state law requires all adult volunteers to have three background checks: 1) A State Police Criminal Record check, 2) A "PA Child Abuse History Certification" from the Dept of Human Services, and 3) EITHER a signed Affidavit attesting no other charges OR  an FBI Fingerprint background check if you have not been a state resident of 10 years. 

When I posed the question about having adults just register as MBCs (because MBCs also have to these checks), versus as paid adult registrations, I got a rather nasty response from National.

Which really begs the cynical question:  Is this move more about collecting fees than it is about protecting children?  (I think I know the answer.)

[InquisitiveScouter]

1 hour ago, PACAN said:

This is all designed to make more MBCs registered as paid adults.    I'm guessing they don't want all MBCs to be paid positions because a number of them that are MBCs only will walk away.   I wonder how many  MBCs are already dual registered.

@PACAN, the loophole @mrjohns2 is referring to is this (I think, because this is what we did...):

Not too long ago, the G2SS required only one registered adult over 21, and a second "registered adult" form the supervision team for an overnight outing (it wasn't "all events" like it is now.)  The rules did not stipulate this had to be a "unit registered adult" (it still does not stipulate that, but that is the intent).  So, to save money, units would register the minimum number of adults required to have a unit on the charter, and then have everyone else register as MBCs (for free) so that they were "registered" and thus meet the G2SS requirements.

Councils and National figured out this "loophole", and have moved to close it. 

 

[HashTagScouts]

57 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

We used this scheme before it became "illegal."

Also, in our state (PA), state law requires all adult volunteers to have three background checks: 1) A State Police Criminal Record check, 2) A "PA Child Abuse History Certification" from the Dept of Human Services, and 3) EITHER a signed Affidavit attesting no other charges OR  an FBI Fingerprint background check if you have not been a state resident of 10 years. 

When I posed the question about having adults just register as MBCs (because MBCs also have to these checks), versus as paid adult registrations, I got a rather nasty response from National.

Which really begs the cynical question:  Is this move more about collecting fees than it is about protecting children?  (I think I know the answer.)

I'm generally ready to get right in line when it comes to kicking national in the shins. I really think that they would have been happy to have just kept grumbling when asked like you experienced, and not rocked the boat. Right now, with as much as they are having to open the notebooks and have all the minutiae questioned by outsiders, they have no real choice in having to tighten the screws. 

I had actually interpreted the prior guidelines on 21+ female adults the way it is written now- once they made 18-20 year old males non-compliant for two-deep, my minded just drawn the dotted line in regards to the same for females I guess.

[InquisitiveScouter]

2 minutes ago, HashTagScouts said:

they have no real choice in having to tighten the screws. 

No.  But they can clearly articulate coherent policies.  Not come up with more incoherent ones...

For example, there should be nothing wrong with having MBCs be the second adult.  They have to be registered, have YPT, and background checks.

Simply put in the additional instruction: "MBCs may fulfill only one position of supervision at a unit event, with the permission of the CO."

Unless, councils aren't really doing the background checks? ($$$)

[mrjohns2]

30 minutes ago, HashTagScouts said:

I had actually interpreted the prior guidelines on 21+ female adults the way it is written now- once they made 18-20 year old males non-compliant for two-deep, my minded just drawn the dotted line in regards to the same for females I guess.

I had always read it as “all events require 2 registered adults, 21 years or older, if any females less than 21 present, one of the 2 must be female”. I guess since we are a troop and pack, we never had a 18-21 year old participant to worry about. 

[seattlecyclone]

4 hours ago, qwazse said:

@InquisitiveScouter, keep complaining about it and those 19-20 year old ASMs will be reclassified as program participants.

I want to make it clear how much of my life involves deeply personal one-on-one conversations with 19-20 year olds of the opposite sex. It is very hard for some young adult women to navigation their world — many are facing abuse, caregiver burdens, financial stress — and they open up about it to very few people. They often look for second father figure and, along with their friends, arrange a meeting with him. Sometimes that person is me, often I can rope a second elder into that conversation, but often time is of the essence and we can’t ill afford time to screen that fellow qualified elder by sex.

This is how the real world works and will continue to work. By imposing this kind of restriction, BSA will remove itself further from meeting the needs of young adults.

The problem of course is that every once in a while that father figure takes advantage of the situation and exploits the young person seeking guidance. Given past events and current litigation, I totally understand why the BSA would want to have strong rules prohibiting such one-on-one conversations from happening under their aegis, even though they're a positive thing over 99% of the time.

[MikeS72]

1 hour ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

No.  But they can clearly articulate coherent policies.  Not come up with more incoherent ones...

For example, there should be nothing wrong with having MBCs be the second adult.  They have to be registered, have YPT, and background checks.

Simply put in the additional instruction: "MBCs may fulfill only one position of supervision at a unit event, with the permission of the CO."

Unless, councils aren't really doing the background checks? ($$$)

This policy was the 'safety minute' discussion at our Roundtable last night.  Just so happened that our Council President, Assistant Scout Executive, and Council commissioner were visiting last night. 

Yes, councils (and I would hope that includes all) do background checks for MBC applications.  The money for all of those folks who have for years used the MBC freebie rather than paying the standard adult registration fee has to come from somewhere.

While we did not ask our guest what the cost of the CBC is, I would think it would be similar to what I paid as a school district employee for a FBI background check, which 3 decades ago was $35.  If the cost to BSA is anywhere close to that amount, I would not be surprised to see free MBC status go away.

 

[RichardB]

On 2/16/2023 at 5:45 PM, Eagle1993 said:

This one snuck in when the other change was announced (about adults staying overnight).

A registered female adult leader 21 years of age or over must be present for any activity involving female youth or female adult program participants.  

So, what is the change?  In the past, "female adult program participants" wasn't listed.  So, my understanding, is if you have a female 18-20 attending an event, you need a registered female adult leader 21 years or older.  

This is not a change in Scouting Barriers to Abuse.   The requirement for an adult female leader 21+ for coed Venturing crews has been around for decades.    Adult program participants came to Troops as part of the rollout of Scouts BSA where extra time could be applied for to obtain Eagle.   

 

[curious_scouter]

21 hours ago, PACAN said:

@mrjohns2....that's pretty cynical...loophole?  really?   MBCs have been "free"  for a long time and required to have YPT.  What's changed?

I was using this loophole as a way to "qualify" new ASMs and parents.  We have an influx of new scouts and parents.  The parents don't know me and my leaders, we don't know them.  But as soon as a parent comes into the picture I ask about their interest in outing participation.  If they have one, I first encouraged them to register as a MB counselor.  We need more anyway.  In our council this meant a background check, registration with Scouts BSA and YPT being recorded.  That established a minimum bar for my comfort level on youth safety for them to attend an outing.  Then I would invite them to attend a few outings, and eventually if they wanted to continue attending regularly (not TOO eventually) I'd say they needed to buck up and get into a unit registered position.  But by then we'd have a sense of where they best fit in our unit and the role they could play.

This was very beneficial. 

It allowed me to have a concentrated set of ASMs who were fully trained and most commonly attended (and always lead) outings but a larger bench of additional "reserve scouters" I could call on when needed.  A lot parents in my unit are like "I really can't commit to most outings or meetings, but once or twice a year I'd love to go if you need me".  Allowed me to use those people without saying "Great it'll be $90 a year"  Or like if we're going to do a huge pioneering project on a campout and I just need a few more adult hands.

There were also a few people who just did not pan out.  We took them on outings and we learned - it wasn't for them.  For whatever reason.  This "try before you buy" was a great method.  The COST of being unit registered is pretty high now just to go find out if you like camping with the unit. 

I will really miss having these options and predict it will lead to months where I'm required to cancel the outing due to lack of paid registered adults being available.  IMO this is not about youth protection - the MBC registration mandates that anyway and those people are allowed to meet with our youth regularly as part of the program.  I still view this as a money grab.

 

Edited February 18, 2023 by curious_scouter
double posted somehow

[qwazse]

21 hours ago, RichardB said:

This is not a change in Scouting Barriers to Abuse.   The requirement for an adult female leader 21+ for coed Venturing crews has been around for decades.    …

False. “For decades, “ leaders of both sexes were required for overnight coed activities — two of each for coed wilderness activities where a crew should prepare for  the need to split the group. Other than that a male advisor could certainly hold a meeting with a mixed group of youth, or arrange for another male adult to meet them at the range for a morning of firearms training.

Not even 5 years ago, in 2018, this was extended to include “all meetings,” and the language became one-sided “where a female youth was present.” The latter was to perpetuate corporate double-speak that skirted around “coed.” But, it also was probably to avoid disrupting boy packs (and maybe a few troops) who could only field a pair of female leaders for activities.

Venturing instantly became much more costly to implement for crews whose female adults were not available for every meeting.

Edited February 19, 2023 by qwazse

[mashmaster]

Makes it really difficult for Sea Scouts and Venturing, we are always struggling to find a female leader.

[fred8033]

On 2/17/2023 at 10:41 AM, KublaiKen said:

Too many of our MBCs are already ASMs.

On 2/17/2023 at 11:54 AM, InquisitiveScouter said:

When I posed the question about having adults just register as MBCs (because MBCs also have to these checks), versus as paid adult registrations, I got a rather nasty response from National.

Perhaps the real answer is like much in scouting; the whole merit badge program needs rethinking.  So much of the MB program is subverted by troops doing the MBs within the troop and having any warm body register as a MBC.

Perhaps the real answer is the scout should find resources that are experts, but then the MBC is a district advancement person who could confirm the scout did their work.  It's not really a "go find a counselor".  Instead, it's a scout shows up at roundtable and presents that he completed the MB content ... or presents at summer camp MB office .. or ...  

Then, we could stop talking about units gaming the system to avoid fees by registering adults as MBCs ... which I've done too.

Edited March 31, 2023 by fred8033

[InquisitiveScouter]

1 hour ago, fred8033 said:

So much of the MB program is subverted by troops doing the MBs within the troop and having any warm body register as a MBC.

And by adults allowing *some* 15 years-olds with little to no experience lecture around a picnic table at Summer Camp and giving the MB away.

Edited March 31, 2023 by InquisitiveScouter

[fred8033]

2 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

And by adults allowing 15 years-olds with little to no experience lecture around a picnic table at Summer Camp and giving the MB away.

We each have our complaints.    I've seen some 15 year old camp staff do a more meaningful job then some of the long-time, experienced scouters.  

Edited March 31, 2023 by fred8033