Youth Protection Quiz II

[strider]

I find the scenarios in Youth Protection Training very helpful.

 

Our SM is operating in what he calls a gray area and I would like to discuss with him with the added benefit of your wisdom. I've approached him once, after a previous SM observed something odd, and was basically told I did not really get Youth Protection Training (7 years of scout leadership, trained twice in person, 3x online and one Train the Trainer).

 

So here's my extension of Youth Protection Quiz

 

True / False

 

1) Youth Protection Coverage starts and ends with the event's open and close. SM taking an unrelated youth home with him to unload the car is ok.

 

2) Driving unrelated youth to / from events is ok since roads are public, plus youth protection coverage has not started. Insurance is in place because we are in Class A's, but Youth Protection is not.

 

3) Arriving at camp alone with unrelated youth 30 minutes ahead of the Troop is not okay, but just an unfortunate result of poor planning.

 

4) Inviting an unrelated youth over to a leader's house alone to work on gear, advancement, youth leadership is acceptable since it is not an official event.

 

5) Inviting two unrelated youths over to a leader's house to work on gear, advancement, youth leadership is acceptable since it is not an official event.

 

6) A written note from parents will allow SM to waive one on one youth protection coverage. This is the old "friends of the family" thing. I do not drive my friends' kids who are Scouts that I've known for 7 years around one on one. I get that it is odd that "Uncle Joe" can pick up a kid but the SM or other leader can't drive him home alone. I dislike this note thing because now we have the Scouts that can drive with the SM alone and those that can't.

 

7) As part of mentoring the SPL/ASPL or other Youth Leaders the SM can go one on one. For example, 15-30 minutes alone with the Scout before or after a PLC.

 

8) OA follows different Youth Protection than Boy Scouts or Cub Scouts. It is a brotherhood, and the distinction between Arrowmen is not as clear as regular adult leaders and Scouts. Plus it is the honor society, and as such more trustworthy.

 

9) If any of the above are false, the District Executive can adjust Youth Protection so that things are ok. This is not the guy you'd usually bring Youth Protection issue to.

 

10) A parent being "around" (ex: readily available on cell phone just a mile up the road) makes it not one on one.

 

I am not gunning for the SM. I actually stepped aside as SM to let this guy take over because it was very important for him. He is doing a pretty good job. I am trying not to be the bitter former Scoutmaster with this - to me these are issues that are a) clear and b) easily avoidable (although he is a single guy without kids, it is easier for me since my son usually makes it 2 Scouts). The former-former SM, and neighboring SM have noticed these oddities and are looking to me to address the issue since I am still active in the Troop.

 

And here is my personal answer key:

Five is true, but two deep is always a good idea. Rest seem false.

 

 

[BS-87]

Whoa... I really hope these are hypothetical, because if these are all taken from real examples of behavior, there's a HUGE problem. All are False, and here's why.

 

What's worse is you could show these explanations to a predator and they'd say I'm paranoid and that you're paranoid and crazy for being so over-protective.

 

 

1) Youth Protection Coverage starts and ends with the event's open and close. SM taking an unrelated youth home with him to unload the car is ok.

 

False, Youth Protection is always, in all contact with youth of the program in any setting. This would even include things like birthday or graduation parties.

 

2) Driving unrelated youth to / from events is ok since roads are public, plus youth protection coverage has not started. Insurance is in place because we are in Class A's, but Youth Protection is not.

 

This is only true if there's multiple youth in the car, but only because that eliminates the one on one issue.

 

3) Arriving at camp alone with unrelated youth 30 minutes ahead of the Troop is not okay, but just an unfortunate result of poor planning.

 

Again, one on one would be key here. If there are other people/Troops at camp already, this becomes a non-issue so long as the leader and youth stay in common area with the other people or units.

 

4) Inviting an unrelated youth over to a leader's house alone to work on gear, advancement, youth leadership is acceptable since it is not an official event.

 

No, that is not acceptable. That is not acceptable at all. A predator would use the rapport built in the program of Scouting knowing the opportunity to seclude a youth in a situation like this would arise.

 

5) Inviting two unrelated youths over to a leader's house to work on gear, advancement, youth leadership is acceptable since it is not an official event.

 

It is an official scouting function, it requires two-deep leadership.

 

6) A written note from parents will allow SM to waive one on one youth protection coverage. This is the old "friends of the family" thing. I do not drive my friends' kids who are Scouts that I've known for 7 years around one on one. I get that it is odd that "Uncle Joe" can pick up a kid but the SM or other leader can't drive him home alone. I dislike this note thing because now we have the Scouts that can drive with the SM alone and those that can't.

 

Again, this can be a tool of the predator to seclude a youth that trusts them. Not ok.

 

7) As part of mentoring the SPL/ASPL or other Youth Leaders the SM can go one on one. For example, 15-30 minutes alone with the Scout before or after a PLC.

 

So long as their "alone" conversation takes place with an open door to the common area or within sight of other adults so that the two-deep qualification can be met, there's nothing wrong with the SM advising the Scout.

 

8) OA follows different Youth Protection than Boy Scouts or Cub Scouts. It is a brotherhood, and the distinction between Arrowmen is not as clear as regular adult leaders and Scouts. Plus it is the honor society, and as such more trustworthy.

 

No. OA follows the same rules, and OA advisers should be MUCH more vigilant in watching for abuse because of that brotherhood, mystery, and trusting environment.

 

9) If any of the above are false, the District Executive can adjust Youth Protection so that things are ok. This is not the guy you'd usually bring Youth Protection issue to.

 

No professional can alter or adjust the Youth Protection standards. Any professional that receives a request to "bend the rules" would or should immediately hold a great deal of suspicion for the requester.

 

10) A parent being "around" (ex: readily available on cell phone just a mile up the road) makes it not one on one.

 

No... just... no.

[Basementdweller]

1) Youth Protection Coverage starts and ends with the event's open and close. SM taking an unrelated youth home with him to unload the car is ok.

 

That is incorrect.....It is against YP to have a boy unrelated to you in a car without your own son along.

 

2) Driving unrelated youth to / from events is ok since roads are public, plus youth protection coverage has not started. Insurance is in place because we are in Class A's, but Youth Protection is not.

 

One on One no........

 

3) Arriving at camp alone with unrelated youth 30 minutes ahead of the Troop is not okay, but just an unfortunate result of poor planning.

 

It would be fine if he followed YP in the trip up having multiple scouts or another adult along.

 

4) Inviting an unrelated youth over to a leader's house alone to work on gear, advancement, youth leadership is acceptable since it is not an official event.

 

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

 

5) Inviting two unrelated youths over to a leader's house to work on gear, advancement, youth leadership is acceptable since it is not an official event.

 

It is ok and follows the buddy system.

 

6) A written note from parents will allow SM to waive one on one youth protection coverage. This is the old "friends of the family" thing. I do not drive my friends' kids who are Scouts that I've known for 7 years around one on one. I get that it is odd that "Uncle Joe" can pick up a kid but the SM or other leader can't drive him home alone. I dislike this note thing because now we have the Scouts that can drive with the SM alone and those that can't.

 

That is fine.....but aren't friends and families the ones who end up being the most frequent abusers. No it does not follow the YP rules....

 

7) As part of mentoring the SPL/ASPL or other Youth Leaders the SM can go one on one. For example, 15-30 minutes alone with the Scout before or after a PLC.

 

It is never done totally alone.....usually in a public hallway or in view of the troop or others. Never in a room with a closed door or after everyone goes home.

 

8) OA follows different Youth Protection than Boy Scouts or Cub Scouts. It is a brotherhood, and the distinction between Arrowmen is not as clear as regular adult leaders and Scouts. Plus it is the honor society, and as such more trustworthy.

 

OA should follow the exact same YP as the rest of the BSA..

 

9) If any of the above are false, the District Executive can adjust Youth Protection so that things are ok. This is not the guy you'd usually bring Youth Protection issue to.

 

The DE has no authority to change national rules or guidelines.....I would email or call the council SE and copy the DE and DC about the concerns.....There role is to investigate.

 

10) A parent being "around" (ex: readily available on cell phone just a mile up the road) makes it not one on one.

 

That is not acceptable.....

 

 

 

Have you spoken with your CC and COR about this and your concerns......

 

You have every right to be concerned.....While nothing may be going on.....It violates the rules that protect both youth and adults.....

 

 

Something just doesn't seem right, is the fellow married???? have or had a family???

 

 

[Basementdweller]

In rereading the OP.....

 

 

I would call the SE immediately and report this.....

 

 

[shortridge]

All but No. 5 are wrong. 5 is ok - that's the same procedure we have Scouts follow to meet with a MBC. Two- deep leadership is required for all *outings*, and is different from the prohibition on 1-on-1 contact. If they have a buddy, it's fine.

 

This guy's view of YP is seriously messed up.

 

Also, insurance coverage has nothing to do with uniforming.

 

You have an obligation to report. Please make your next phone call be to the SE.

[T2Eagle]

If these are not hypothetical but actual events, all of which have happened, you should be very concerned. You should be concerned because something bad may be going on, or at a minimum you have a leader who has absolutely the wrong ideas about Youth Protection rules and actually PROTECTING YOUTH, and so even if he has no bad intentions himself, allowing these actions allows someone else with bad intentions to succeed.

 

I am somewhat torn between call the SE immediately and call the CC and COR and put a stop to this immediately, but immediate action is needed. Make it very clear what the rules actually are and what practices must be.

 

If there's any hesitation on the SM's part to change his ways AND HIS BELIEFS, pull the plug. No one person, even if his intentions are good, even if he is otherwise a great scouter, is worth the trouble this kind of thinking and acting could lead to.

[shortridge]

Violations of YP are to be reported to the SE. The G2SS: "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."

 

You can certainly let the COR know, but if they're like 99 percent of CORs, they'll have little idea of what you're talking about. I would find it hard to believe the CC hasn't noticed this stuff already and just turned a blind or ignorant eye.

 

What have your conversations and relationship with he new SM been like on this topic?

[blw2]

This opens an interesting issue.

There's a couple that are long standing good family friends.... a family that has baby sat for my kids for years, long before any of us were in scouting.... He's the Godfather of one of my daughters, His wife has known my wife longer than I have. We have baby sat their kids, visited each other in the hospital when all of our kids were born..... shared his kids' and my kids' birthdays. We've eaten Thankgiving dinner together....you've got the idea.....

 

Well, now he's our CM. I'm an Assistant DL.

 

I understand the 'official capacity and liability', & I get that friends of the family are most often the offenders in abuse cases....but come on.... We're supposed to treat each other like strangers?

[perdidochas]

Since you've approached him, and it continues, you need to go to the District Executive and/or higher ups in the Scouting food chain.

[BS-87]

I understand the 'official capacity and liability', & I get that friends of the family are most often the offenders in abuse cases....but come on.... We're supposed to treat each other like strangers?

 

You don't have to treat him like a stranger, but you said it yourself about who the most common abusers are.

 

Following the guidelines protects your child, your CM friend, and your friendship with that individual. If your child made an accusation, you would immediately have to trust your child no matter if the accusation is true or not. Following the guidelines means that somebody's story is going to be corroborated, which protects everyone but the person in the wrong.

[CalicoPenn]

First, answers to the quiz:

 

1) False.

2) False as written (however, an adult may drive 2 or more unrelated youth on trips and outings or other events - the driver doe not have to be accompanied by a son or sibling - as long as there are at least 2 youth - no one on one).

3) False - and should never happen at all - no one on one driving.

4) False

5) False as written only because it doesn't matter if the event is official or not, otherwise True.

6) False

7) True BUT with a caveat - a SM and SPL (or any other youth) can meet one-on-one and "alone" provided that it is within view of another adult or Scout. In other words, the SM and SPL can meet one-on-one at one end of a meeting hall as long as someone else is in the meeting room with them - they don't have to be part of the meeting, and can be at the other end of the hall where they can't hear what's being said, but they have to be in view of each other at all times - it allows for privacy while maintaining 2-deep.

8) False - the BSA and Order make clear that youth protection policies apply on OA events.

9) False and True (huh, your asking?). The DE can not change any youth protection policies or waive any policies so that part is false. However, the DE is not the person to bring YP issues to - the Scout Executive is - so that part is true.

10) False

 

So now to the rest of the story. Is your new SM violating any of these precepts? There really is no gray areas in YP. He's either following them, or he's not. If he's regularly meeting with any Scouts one-on-one, inviting them to his home, driving them separately to campsites, etc., then that should be a major red flag to any parent. Are you the CC or COR? If not, why are you the one discussing this with the Scoutmaster? If this were happening in my Troop, the COR would be letting this SM know right now that his services are no longer needed and that the Scout Executive will be informed that he was removed from his post for these specific violations of YP, even if there is no evidence or complaints that something untoward has occured, but because this unit takes YP seriously and does not take chances.

 

[Stosh]

I have always felt that the title Youth Protection is incorrect. I have always viewed this subject simply: "Never get yourself into court going up against a youth who's word carries more weight than yours."

 

A few years back I walked to work. After getting there, the front desk called me down to the front entrance because I had a visitor. It was a police officer. I was taken outside and grilled for a half hour about me trying to lure some kid with candy to get into a car.

 

This went around and around until we found a co-worker who had seen me walk to work and noticed a kid about a block away we assume to be the kid who had said something to the police. I finally was released to go back to work when I could prove I DIDN'T HAVE A CAR at the job site. It was 12 blocks away at the shop where it was being fixed. That's why I was walking.

 

In this day and age I don't worry so much about Youth Protection in as much as I am more concerned about Self Protection. Everything in Youth Protection also protects me from fraudulent accusations by some disgruntled youth.

 

Sorry for being so blunt, but this philosophy has kept me out of most situations, see above.

 

Stosh

 

[Oak Tree]

5 is ok, although it is a Scouting function.

 

The rest are false. I would not worry much about #6, but the rest really suggest a disregard for the rules.

 

I would start by talking to the CC.

[bnelon44]

This isn't being in a 'grey area' if he is doing any of these (except maybe #5, he is in violation of the GTSS. If after you discussed it with him, he still is doing these things, skip the CC, call the SE immediately. He will advise you from there. But report it. I would also suspend SM activity in the troop until this is resolved.

[Basementdweller]

Son is friends with the boys in his patrol......Many of them have spent the night at my home.....

 

It wasn't a scout event, I did not invite the scout over, I was not one on one with the scout, I did kill him a few times in death match and he returned the favor.....

 

 

It was my son inviting a friend over.......

 

 

It was not me, Male Adult 40 something, inviting a boy over........

 

Big difference