scheherazadesghost

I'm aware. AFAIK, DCI-wide, it's a one hour video created by the USCSS. Great. But as I said when they first implemented it, it's only a start and not nearly enough. We've gotten anon reports that the members themselves have found it ineffective, going so far as to use the term "Safe Sport" as a code word for predators in their midst on tour. It's also not enough if staff aren't reinforcing those reporting channels or don't feel confident using themselves. Or if abusers have managed to weasel their way in still, which happens. Training, especially weak, limited training, is only a small piece of the education pie here. Also, if the training is generic enough to share activity wide, then it's probably not going to point to organization-specific channels. Another problem: the generic training is easy to check off and forget when you're in the moment, facing an abuser or survivor. This is likely why SOA developed their own training in-house, I imagine, because their reporting system is more robust and the generic version wouldn't have helped. And yet, we're still seeing breaks in the system, even if this is a rare case of a false accusation! That's how complicated this work is. Even the work done so far is clearly not enough if we're still getting young members who are potentially only going to social media, or who are asking reddit what they should do. Also, to correct myself: the generic training isn't activity wide, as Terri pointed out in the Cadets bankruptcy thread... It. Is. Not. Good. Enough. Yet.

I'm grateful to you and all you've done, and apologize for indicating otherwise in the past in my ignorance.

The resource is from 2021-22. Social media is not best practice, true, but something desperate survivors/reporters do. Your verging on victim blaming when you 1. assume they haven't gone to the police and 2. assume that what you know the circumstances well enough to tell the survivor/reporter what to do. We don't know if this person is a survivor or not. There's a very real possibly that they are. If they aren't, which again, we cannot know, then they are risking the survivors' safety by outing them. To that end, if true, and I've agreed with you, social media can be detrimental. But again, it's a desperate act. They further report that they have blown the proper whistleblowing channels, but didn't feel heard. That would lead anyone to desperation. I'm trying not to make this personal. You speak with a voice similar to the detractors in the reddit thread, so I emphasized what I and others see there, which is uninformed people coming down on a reporter. Trust me, I'll implicate you directly if it's crucial in doing so. If I don't do that, it's best to assume I'm not accusing you of anything. Thank you for this reminder. But I'm not doing this to convince them. I'm doing this to counter them for other survivors out there who may have trouble finding their voice and language to use.

Top hit: https://evawintl.org/best_practice_faqs/false-reports-percentage/ Feel free to post international, reliable sources reflecting otherwise. Best practice is to protect reporters first, then investigate. You're a broken record because you're not bringing in any resources that counter best practices and research. These state that the criminal justice system often retraumatizes survivors, which is a huge factor in their decision to go to authorities or not. I've never said don't go to the police. It's part of the many possible responses a reporter can take. Coming down hard on a survivor for assuming they didn't take the step you think they should isn't helpful. I don't disagree here. But I do have the heart to sympathize with young people who may not understand that. I don't jump down their throats for not thinking like a fully grown adult who knows the full spectrum of options available to them. To do otherwise would be retraumatizing, which I do my best not to engage in.

Ew. Now the post has been removed by mods. That's gotten increasingly rare over there so I'm a bit surprised. OP and subsequent posters are reporting really bad stuff... I think what people don't understand is 1. how rare false accusations are statistically and 2. even in the rare case it's false, the reporters and org still have a very serious problem on their hands that shouldn't be censored automatically. 1000 yikes! My first post on reddit reporting my abuse was censored as well so I feel for OP on that way as well.

And don't forget, AFAIK, USCSS doesn't provide oversight because DCI isn't an official national governing body. They only provide the weak training module. ROFLOL. I'll be sure to mention that oversight in my first committee meeting. Thank you.

SSI differentiates youth from adult safeguarding, but emphasizes that both are critical to be considered a safe sport entity. And not just for participants, but for staff, volunteers, and leadership as well: Adults: https://safesportinternational.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/SAFEGUARD-DOC-Proof-4-Single.pdf Children/minors*: https://safeinsport.org/8-safeguards/ *also available in Swahili 💪🏽

Translation: We care on paper, but here are a few unnecessary hurdles for you to jump if you have a serious concern. Yeah, SSI is very clear that policies should serve children/minors and adults equally, with only minimal caveats

Indeed there are laws, but I've encountered too many situations in which the law doesn't cover the violations endured. Besides, resources and research I provided from international experts in safe sport day the same: the organizations and oversight bodies should take it on themselves under the duty to care. Plain and simple. They aren't a safe sport without doing so.

If DCI were an official National Governing Body via USCSS or a SSI entity, they would probably by liable for all this and more. I imagine that's why there's not an open push for them to become one. ... to the detriment of members, staff, alumni, and volunteers.

We have no transparent way of knowing if this is being rigorously enforced though. Transparency is what allows stakeholders to believe that they are. My own interactions with DCI on such matters are not encouraging. Also, this resource has free, much-more-robust training options that organizations could implement tomorrow: https://www.safesportinternational.com/courses-and-resources/ . They provide certificates of completion for free too. Partner with an org that specializes in youth safeguarding and figure it out. The above resource says that "Remedy" for mistakes and violations against survivors is part of safe sport principles. DCI doesn't have to reinvent the wheel or throw their hands up in bewilderment here... They are full of bias and have proven not to meet international safe sport recommendations and best practices. Even the US Center for Safe Sport has been called out in national news sources for failing survivors who report. This has to get better, and relying on the USCSS is a weak approach, just as I said it would be when they first implemented it. On average, the policies are wimpy. SOA stands out here as having robust policies... now... and look what it took to get them there. And while the non profits are required to provide these policies to the public on request, I had to shove my own corps to improve said policies. And it was a shove because they were not initially welcoming of feedback without more force. This process shouldn't be like pulling teeth. These policies should be living documents that are updated after yearly review. Before my shove, they hadn't been updated since 2018.

Why does this all sound so familiar? 😞

... made infinitely worse that these methods were used in a youth education setting. The statistics showing how much of the young population already experienced more than one adverse childhood experience before 18 are staggering. This info, new to me, makes him all the more deplorable. I've also used the word indoctrination to describe my own adverse experiences in drum corps before. We've had psychiatrists at the helm more than once at my home corps with not so great outcomes. Can't say they're directly related for certain, but I have had my hackles up about it. How crucial it is to protect the youth and orgs from abuse of power! They doesn't just regulate themselves without robust oversight....

The power dynamics between boards and their lead executive/s are fudged with all the time in non profits though, in my experience. I think plenty a corps director/lead executive in drum corps orgs has abused power because of that. JF is another one that comes to mind. Technically the executive/s report to the board, yes, but sometimes there is an intentional power share, or there's a co-leadership exchange of power... I worked in situations where the executive is encouraged to lead the board in some areas, or, at least strongly encourage action, or even take the lead in strategic planning. Especially in the unfortunate case where board members don't have expertise in nonprofit strategic planning. Womp. But that's all kosher so long as anti corruption, anti nepotism, whistleblowing, succession planning, disciplinary action, and conflict of interest policies are all robust AND followed to a T. I simply don't catch whiffs of all those necessities happening consistently across the drum corps activity. Either on paper or in practice... or both. 🫣 So, where yes, technically these are non profits, many are still very mom-n-pop when it comes to governance and either the board strangles the admin or vice versa in incredibly detrimental ways. And sometimes instead of strangling, there's just... nothing... just slack... weak oversight at best. In all of scenarios, you're gonna have a bad time. Executives and board members that like to abuse power thrive in those scenarios... it's why they're drawn to youth non profits. They can be ripe for the picking, if you will....

I'm endlessly grateful for your perspective here. Thank you. And I'm sorry for what you endured.

Thank you for calling it out. Many redditors are doing the same. It must be called out in all of its many manifestations; I'm flummoxed and frustrated by the sheer number of people still don't realize they do this and how it only feeds bad actors, enablers, and flying monkeys. Either that, or they realize they're doing it (i.e. flying monkeys.) Also, glad I'm not on other socials. 🤮

This is common in my both my lived experience as well as in supporting my clients and other survivors outside of my practice. I'm sorry to read this and wish you ease.

Thank you for this. I'm grateful for your voice here.

It's not much now, but I'm sorry what never should've happened to you both did. Thank you for sharing this, as it will be instructive and inspiring for someone out there that you spoke up.

Yeesh. That statement wasn't about you and neither is this whole situation. It was a clarifying statement regarding what you said. You call call it scorched earth if you like, but it's completely aligned with the clarity provided by international safe sport research, and research regarding institutional whistleblowing/retaliation. Perhaps don't take what I say so personally when I'm not explicitly implicating you. I get that tensions and emotions are high here, but those that are most-immediately important are those of victims. Especially those that are publicly known, taking additional hits of retraumatization and victim blaming on DCP and other socials. If you are an unnamed victim in this, I truly lament that, especially if you are taking fire behind the scenes. That's still not the same as taking public fire though. That said, it's clear countless elders in this activity have not known, or done appropriate professional development, to neutrally support reporters of abuse and whistleblowers. Too many clearly still don't, to the detriment of Cadets alum and members/staff/alum of other corps. Again, I'm intentionally referring to the activity as a whole here. There are countless other examples that have nothing to do with you that I'm referring to here, of which I'm assuming you're aware to some degree.

The problem is not with those who wouldn't come forward or any supposedly unfounded rumors, it's with the institution that allows, enables, or encourages retaliation against anyone who does. The reddit thread points to that happening throughout the org's history. Finally someone else is putting this to words. Triumph over odds that never should have been levied against young people.

You see what happens when concerned parties try to say something out loud, though. Not surprising.

Sir. This is a current Vanguard staffer.

Gross. That's not acceptable at a corps with a corroborated history of abuse. It normalizes enabling. The adult "kid" defended, enabled a known abuser into shows by providing a badge, enabled him to advise my corps on their show... supposedly. Those are all disqualifying, enabling behaviors, exactly as I pointed out at the time. And they demonstrate the adult "kid" is likely challenged by calling out and acting appropriately on other concerning behaviors if they're observed. Has the adult "kid" done any additional professional development to assertively demonstrate otherwise? Has this bare minimum been reached, requested, or even attempted?

Regarding GH and claims regarding a current staff member at Vanguard: