Possible Youth Protection Problem?

[Scoutfish]

TwocubDad,

Nah, I'm not going ton reporet you because of exactly what you said: THey cannot foresee every single circumstance or incident. A broad general rul to cover everything will not work in every case.

 

I know that if I take my nephew alone, I am violating YP, but if I leave him home, I am blatantly ignoring the spirit of the scout law and what it stands for.

 

I also see it just the way you do. I am the CubMaster of the pack. But I am also a family member and relative of my nephew.

 

The way I see it, I am only a CM when I am doing pack stuff with scouts. If one of my cubscouts happenes to be a neighbor, then he's only my scout and I am only his CubMaster when it comes to scouting related events. The rest of the time, I am a neighbor who just happens to be a scouter and a CM.

[Twocubdad]

Old, obscure Jimmy Buffet songs are my torture tunes of choice. "So who's gonna steal the peanut butter, I'll get the can of sardines. Runnin' up and down the aisle of the MiniMart, stickin' food in our jeans...."

 

Actually perdi, if camp policy were to have been followed, the DL should have approached the man, asked if he had a visitor badge and escorted him to HQ if he did not. The lady who reported the incident was in the paired den and far enough away that she really didn't know what she was watching. The autistic boy's actual DL was in the man's pack and knew he was well equipped to deal with him.

[qwazse]

qwazse - Despite your use of a bold font, those are in fact hypothetical responses to the situation.

I wish, in fact, they were.

I'll grant that those are very real possibilities for some situations, but certainly not the only way that it could be handled at the unit level.

I would have said the same thing, before the second time...

There's also no saying whether the SE's response would be any different, or any better.

Not different, just independent from all of the unit's biases.

To avoid speculating on how the SE would/could/should respond, is there anyone with any first hand knowledge of the policies (if any) that guide how a council follows up on a YP-related infraction by a volunteer?

My experience is the SE contacts the unit leader immediately. If the offense is not actionable, the leader is warned of the "potential risk to youth in our crew." The COR is also informed. (Beav, that's why I put the SE first, but your point is taken that sometimes communication is less than perfect.)

 

So it comes back to the unit to sort out, but with the knowledge that a third party has eyes on the situation.

[Scoutfish]

I can totally comprehend the importance of calling the SE instead of just deciding for your self how bad it is.

 

For example:

 

Maybe while at a District event, Beavah sees me doing something somewhat that doesn't quiite sit right. He could take it upon himself to think it's just a one time , no big deal thing..or report it.

 

Next month, while at Resident Camp, Packsaddle sees me in a situation that may not be totally kosher. He coulod make the judgement, or call the SE.

 

3 Weeks later, before or after a pack meeting, a DL see's me in a situation that technically violates YP, but since he knows me, he knows that I am not "that kind of person". Or he couold call the SE . If for no other reason than to follow rules to a T.

 

Now, each incident may be nothing, but the SE is in a position to see That I do something not quite right or that "appears" suspicious on a constant basis.

 

For the above outcome, I totally get sticking to the rules of YP.

 

You ever watch the news and hear about somebody who snaps and kills the whole family or blows up a bank or something?

 

What do the friends and neighborsd always say: "He was such a nice guy...never hurt or bothered anybody. He was well liked and respected!"

 

But you never hear people say: "Oh , him? WE all always knew he was a nut. I'm surprised it took this long for him to get caught!"

 

So yeah, people are not what they always seem. Children will make up excuses for their abusers out of embarrassment and out of fear of retaliation. Wives makes up excuses or think it's their own fault.

 

But at the same time, after having said what I did above...I will be violating YP if I bring my nephew to a meeting or event because mom and dad are working and my own son doesn't go due to sickness.

 

It is in those particular types of situations where YP needs to be either lenient, have a list of "except when's" or not aply until I step mout of the btruck at the CO and "declare" myself on the clock.

[5yearscouter]

I've seen uncles with nephew in tow drive to a scout event,

get out

put on their scout uniform shirts to designate they are now doing scouting.

and before going home, take off their scout uniform shirts before getting back into the vehicle to help show that they are now family and not doing scouting any more.

 

it's sort of a silly little dance to go thru, but it helps them to clarify that a scouter isn't driving the scout here and there, but uncle and nephew are driving together.

 

I have also seen some incredibly crazy maneuvering done in order for one adult to drive home two unrelated scouts to two separate households, stop at first hour, drop off scout, pick up scout's dad/mom so they can drive to second house and drop off second scout, then drive back to first house to drop off the adult.

 

[SeattlePioneer]

In 2004 I accepted an AS position with a troop when I was interested in getting back into Scouting.

 

Over a period of five months I saw some good things and some bad things in this struggling troop.

 

On one overnight camp several young men and women I'd never seen before participated as "youth." Perhaps it was a coincidence, but the next morning the state park restrooms had most of the fixtures ripped out of the wall and the place was trashed.

 

These "youth" said they'd seen some people in the park the previous night driving around. I had no first hand knowledge of who might have done the damage.

 

At camporee several siblings went along as part of the camp. I was later told by the mother of one teen age girl that an AS had had sex with her daughter in a tent during the camporee.

 

I had no reason to disbelieve the comments of the mother. Neither did I have any first hand knowledge of what might have happened.

 

I wound up finding another troop with which to work. Several months later I heard gossip that the AS the mom had referred to had been suspended for life by BSA. I don't know if that was true or what the reason may have been.

 

The AS was probably forty or so and had been a Scout in the troop and a Scouter in the same troop for many years.

 

The troop has rechartered each year, but hasn't had a program, leaders or youth since about that time.

 

 

[qwazse]

Yep, SP. That's where you make the phone call to the SE. (If the mom didn't tell you it was "in process" of being handled.)

He will tell you if the story is old news or if this is a new allegation.

 

Either way, there is a better chance of nipping the rumor mill in the bud.

 

SA's are removed from troops for far less than that.

 

And FWIW, "tag-along" siblings (especially older ones) are far worse YP risk than co-ed Venturing crews. I expect my Venturers to respect the reasonable requests of adult leaders from other troops, but I have no idea who's expecting what from the "tag-alongs".

[Beavah]

Now, each incident may be nothing, but the SE is in a position to see That I do something not quite right or that "appears" suspicious on a constant basis

 

Yah, it's a nice theory, Scoutfish. But da truth is the SE doesn't really do investigations and hasn't really "seen" anything.

 

Any DE will tell you that whenever there's adult infighting going on in a unit, they get a series of calls and complaints. And just like we see here on da forums, when that infighting goes on, there's all kinds of animosity and people accusing other people of things, including "YP Violations". Suddenly driving your nephew to the meeting becomes 3 separate complaints to the SE about your callous disregard for da no one-on-one rule. When asked, another parent in da program who left in a huff over the popcorn reimbursement policy talks like E61 about da time you recklessly endangered children by taking 'em canoeing on a flat water lake when it was cold out, and how there might not have been a certified adult lifeguard in the boat of a beginner swimmer.

 

Now that doesn't mean that for real, substantive accusations like those SeattlePioneer mentioned that we should hesitate one second. If I had been SP, I would have taken the mom to file a police report and been on da phone with the SE and the IH that very hour. And then would have worked with da parents to find counseling services for the daughter.

 

What's important is that there's a difference between those two things, eh? A real, substantive difference between statutory rape and incidental violations of program best practice. When we lump 'em all together we blur that line and make it less likely that people will treat the important stuff as truly important. That's why a one size fits all, zero tolerance zero thoughtfulness reporting policy is actually harmful to youth protection.

 

Beavah

[Scoutfish]

"But da truth is the SE doesn't really do investigations and hasn't really "seen" anything."

 

Well, the parents of thos in question, judges, lawyers and DA's havent really seen anything either, but that doesn't stop somebody from sueing now does it?

 

Not sure about your area, but in ours somebody will look into it. How far? Depends on what was reposrted and who it is reported to.

 

Thing is, if an SE gets a handfull of calls over time from many people about only one person..then a red flag should pop up in his mind if nowhere else.

 

If he gets enough calls about somebody, he will do something. Maybe he is obnly avoiding a potential lawsuit and wants to cover his but..but as long as something is done to protect the kids..then the why isn't so much as big a deal.

 

What concerns me though is that you seem to be saying people shouldn't even bother since nothing will happen.

 

Me? I know rediculous unwarranted stuff gets reported, but I thinks it's better to err on the side of caution than to ignore it. If nothing gets done...I can still sleep at night knowing I did my part.

 

 

[Beavah]

That same argument of "erring on the side of caution" can of course be used to justify all kinds of things, eh? Includin' a lazy SE just terminating your BSA membership because he got a couple of reports about your irresponsible nephew-driving. Just like "erring on the side of caution" has TSA security agents giving enhanced pat-downs to potentially dangerous 6-year-old girls.

 

I'm an old fellow, eh? I reckon lots of da younger folks don't remember da old Soviet and Chinese practices of encouraging neighbors to rat out neighbors and relatives to tell da authorities about any "suspicion" they had about mom or dad or uncle Joe. It was a Civic Duty. It was a great way of gettin' that annoying neighbor sent to da gulag. And it was monstrous.

 

Some folks feel that da broader mandatory reporting statutes even for true child abuse can be counterproductive, because of limited time and resources to follow up on poor quality reports from "erring on da side of caution" civilians. And that's professional CPS following up on real child abuse allegations. You want to do mandatory reporting of nuthin' more than protocol incidents to a fellow who is much less well trained and resourced than CPS?

 

Like I said, if we all follow suit, every SE in da country will be on the phone to Irving by the end of the month to get that wording changed back!

 

The fallacy that you're operatin' from is that a remote, relatively untrained authority like an SE is goin' to be in a better position to recognize and respond than those who are closer to the kids. It just ain't so, which is why your example is so strained. It's alert, trained folks close to the kids who detect da patterns of grooming and abuse, and who know the difference between that and driving your nephew home .

 

Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[shortridge]

For the record, this is the relevant section from the G2SS about reporting violations to the SE:

 

"Notify your Scout executive of this report, or of any violation of BSAs Youth Protection policies, so that he or she may take appropriate action for the safety of our Scouts, make appropriate notifications, and follow-up with investigating agencies."

 

I think it speaks for itself. Beavah and others can feel free to disagree, but it's pretty clear to me. We have a responsibility, and the SE has a responsibility. Simple enough.

[Beavah]

Yah, shortridge, yeh might think...

 

Until yeh actually read da book and recognize that the quote you pulled out of context was from da section entitled "Mandatory Report of Child Abuse". So, when we don't take it out of context, we realize that da quote is actually meant to be taken in the context of the previous paragraph, which is referring to physical or sexual abuse, physical or emotional neglect, violence or threat of violence, sexual exploitation, child pornography, solicitation, enticement, or obscene material.

 

Then yeh refer you Youth Protection Training, which spells out the reportin' requirements as I described them, eh?

 

Amazin' the things yeh can learn by readin' the guidebook like a guidebook.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Scoutfish]

My thinking isn't "strained" ..actually, your thinking is limited.

 

It's limited to what you think.

 

The 6 year old girl for example. Now, neither you or I can think of a reason to pat her down right?

 

But what about the nutjobs who blow up building because their God said to in the name of what it right and just? Do you think they would have an issue with hiding a bomb on a 6 year old girl?

 

Noipe! They sure wouldn't. And that's why a 6 year old girl will get a pat down in an airport.

 

You ever see one of those Gerry Springer shows where an infant less trhat a year old is dressed in KKK pajamas?

 

You think that parents who have that sort of mentality don't pass it on to their kidfs?

 

What about the Timmothy McVeighs of the world who blow up buildings full of innocent adults AND CHILDREN? You think he'd have an issue hiding a bomb on a child to further his mission?

 

So it comes down to this: You may not ever consider it or even comprehend why a person would do something that horrible..but the rest of the world doesn't operate with your veiwpoint.

 

 

"Like I said, if we all follow suit, every SE in da country will be on the phone to Irving by the end of the month to get that wording changed back! "

 

It's funny how you keep saying all these rules are wrong and how somebody wrote them down wrong frow what they used to be..but here's a thought: Maybe they were wrongly edited before and now, they are back where they are supposed to be..Or, in fact, exactly where National wants them to be even though they are not where you want them to be.

 

 

"...we realize that da quote is actually meant to be taken in the context of the previous paragraph, which is referring to physical or sexual abuse, physical or emotional neglect, violence or threat of violence, sexual exploitation, child pornography, solicitation, enticement, or obscene material>

 

And are you saying that none of that can happen in a car with my nephew? That it couldn't happen with the SM and the one child? EXactly what is going on at that time?

 

Do you know Beavah?

 

Where doers it start and where does it end? Or is it just a spontaneous start and end to such stuff.

 

And you missed the entire point of what I said. One person calling the SE may not do anything, but if different people in different places and at different times call an SE and report one constant person, then a pattern starts to appear.

 

One incident may mean nothing, 12 questionalble incident over 8 months also may be nothing, but absolutely are very worth looking into.

 

And if the SE ignbores that..he's neglecting his job. As far as the people closest to you being the best judges..Not necessarily. There is a thing called being to close and too personal. You lose objectivity to the situation. The same thing with Doctors and judges. They are not supposed to operate on, attend to or preside over thier own family because their personal involvement usually ( but not always) cloudes their own judgement.

 

Also, what if the person in question is you best friend in life if not just your best friend in the unit? Are you going to tell me that every adult leader is capable of standing back and making an honest and clear decision about a possible YP issue?

 

What if two adult leaders are lifetime foes? What if they have an issue with everything each other does>

 

You expect to get a real and objective assesment from that?

 

WE used to have a lady on our committe who called some of us "un-Christian" because we did not agree with her to serve potato salad over boiled potatoes and green beans at a BBQ chiken Pack fundraiser. She then promptly quit helping with anything after that.

 

Do you or I want her to be the one to judge something as delicate as a YP issue?

 

Nah,. I don't even think so.

 

Maybe BSA understood that. Maybe that's why the SE is the one who is supposed to be called . He does not have any personal involvement , and doesn't have anything to gain or lose over checking into a "REPORTED" YP incident.

 

And it's just that: reported, not confirmed.

 

Again, I'd much rather the SE call me because somebody called him about something they did not understand - than to have a child go through ANY KIND OF ABUSE because somebody was positive that thier friend wasn't capable of doing something like that!

 

 

Again, the newspapers and tv news are full of stories of people saying : "Oh he was such a nice quiet guy who never hurt anybody. Everybody always liked him and he was so active in the community. We are just SHOCKED!"

 

But you never hear people say: "I was just counting the days before the law got him, WE always knew he was doing that."

 

 

[KC9DDI]

But won't someone think of the children!!!

 

Again, the newspapers and tv news are full of stories of people saying : "Oh he was such a nice quiet guy who never hurt anybody. Everybody always liked him and he was so active in the community. We are just SHOCKED!"

 

They're full of stories like that? Just how full exactly? And despite the media's tendency for over-sensationalizing, there absolutely are people who see signs of child abuse well before the abuser is arrested.

 

Another point to consider: YPT is not all about preventing child abuse. A lot of it is about re-enforcing what are positive and appropriate ways for adults to interact with youth. Not every "violation" leads to child abuse - it just means that an adult may have failed to use good judgment about how to appropriately handle a situation. Many, if not most, of these issues can be adequately handled at the unit level.

 

I'd be all in favor of keeping the SE in the loop when it makes sense to do so - when the information is the SE's business and when there's something useful that he can do with it. Acting in the hope that he'll somehow track every "complaint" against an adult and them acting appropriate if he gets "enough" of them isn't a very good strategy to do anything about abuse.

 

For me its pretty simple - suspicions of abuse are reported to the appropriate authorities, illegal activities are reported to the appropriate authorities, and the SE can be informed once the immediate danger has been resolved. Everything else gets handled at the unit level. "YPT guidelines" are just that - guidelines. Serious suspicions of abuse or illegal behavior is something separate.

[NealOnWheels]

Beavah,

 

I read those two paragraphs under Mandatory Report of Child Abuse so I could read it in context.

 

The first paragraph mandates that Scouters report cases of child abuse to the local athorities.

 

The second paragraph describes two different things to be reported to the Scout Executive. They are seperated by the word "or". The first is any report described in the first paragraph. The second is "any violation of BSAs Youth Protection policies".

 

It seems very clear to me.

 

Of course you would argue that this is only a guide anyway.