Church Executive SEPT / OCT 2019 DIGITAL ISSUE | Page 29

Preferential offender
The preferential offender might be male or
female and may have an age-appropriate partner,
but prefers a child as a sexual partner. Not just
any child; typically, a child of a particular gender
and age range. The preferential offender has no
visual profile — he or she looks like you and me.
Jerry Sandusky and Larry Nassar, for example,
are preferential offenders; neither was identified
as a risk by a visual profile. The preferential
offender represents over 90% of the problem.
This explains a commonly accepted statistic: that
90% of children are victimized by someone they
know and trust.
The preferential offender is the problem
in ministry contexts, but ministry protocols
related to child sexual abuse risk are designed
to protect children from the abduction
offender — the snatch and grab scenarios.
Because the preferential offender has no
visual profile, he or she must be recognized by
behavior, known as the grooming process.
“Sadly, most ministries
continue to build the wrong
fence. For the sake of our
children, it’s time to get to
work building the right fence.”
The grooming process
The grooming process of the preferential
offender involves two significant
efforts: grooming the child and grooming
the gatekeepers. It includes patterns of
identifiable behavior, including:
• Gaining access to children within an age and
gender of preference
• Selecting a specific child (or children)
• Introducing nudity and sexual touch
• Keeping the child quiet to ensure secrecy
Grooming the child
Grooming of the child will vary depending on
the child’s age, gender and situation. When the
targeted child is a teen male, common grooming
behaviors will include pornography, alcohol,
marijuana and horseplay. If the targeted child
is a teen girl, common grooming behaviors will
include texting, social media communication
and sexual discussion. If the targeted child is
under 8, common grooming behaviors will
include tickling and forms of playful touch,
gravitating toward places of isolation.
Grooming the gatekeeper
A gatekeeper is anyone responsible for
protecting a child: parents, teachers, youth
workers, coaches or babysitters. The
preferential offender works hard to appear
helpful, trustworthy and responsible to
disarm a child’s gatekeepers. Why? Molesters
are looking for trusted time alone to groom a
child for sexual touch.
Both Sandusky and Nassar were effective at
grooming children and gatekeepers. Neither
had past criminal convictions, both would
have passed a criminal background check,
and neither had a visual profile. Conversely,
if program leaders had understood the
grooming process of the preferential offender,
both Sandusky and Nassar would have been
identified as a serious risk several years — and
several victims — earlier.
What now?
For any church leader, the first step in
addressing child sexual abuse risk is self-
critical analysis. Ministry leaders must shake
off the delusion that this is an insignificant
issue or someone else’s problem, or that this
risk is effectively addressed by criminal
background checks and a child check-
in system. Conservative studies indicate
that less than 10% of sexual abusers will
encounter the criminal justice system, ever.
The child check-in system will not negate
or identify the behaviors of the preferential
offender. By clearly understanding the actual
risk, ministry leaders are better prepared to
protect children in their care.
The next article will explore the grooming
process of the preferential offender,
and describe an effective safety system
addressing the risk of child sexual abuse
in ministry programs — the foundational
elements of the right fence.
Is there any good news in this? Yes. The
offender’s grooming process is predictable —
and what is predictable is preventable.
Next Article:
CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE
IN MINISTRY
The Grooming Process and an
Effective Safety System
Kimberlee Norris and Gregory Love are
partners in the Fort Worth, Texas law firm of
Love & Norris [ https://www.lovenorris.com ] and
founders of MinistrySafe [ https://ministrysafe.
com ], providing child sexual abuse expertise to
ministries worldwide.
After representing victims of child sexual abuse
for more than two decades, Love and Norris saw
recurring, predictable patterns in predatory behavior.
MinistrySafe grew out of their desire to place proactive
tools into the hands of ministry professionals. Love
and Norris teach the only graduate-level course
on Preventing Sexual Abuse in Ministry as Visiting
Faculty at Dallas Theological Seminary.
Why
‘the list’
fails
Criminal Background Checks — No
Silver Bullet
Less than 10% of sexual abusers
will encounter the criminal justice
system, ever.
More than 90% of abusers have no
record to find; and they know it.
Further, getting and understanding
criminal records that do exist continues
to challenge ministry leaders.
Child Check-In Systems
The effectiveness of a child check-
in system can only be evaluated
when ministry leaders understand
the difference between the abduction
offender and the preferential offender.
A ministry’s child check-in system
might be effective related to the
abduction offender, who constitutes
4-5% of the risk. Generally, a child
check-in system is useless as it relates
to the preferential offender — who
represents over 90% of the risk.
Further, the child check-in system is
completely ineffective in reducing the
risk of peer-to-peer sexual abuse.
Policies & Procedures
Policies are what you DO, not what
you SAY you do. Policies and procedures
are the written expression of what is
and is not appropriate behavior in a
ministry program.
If a ministry leader does not
understand the preferential offender,
it is unlikely that he or she is familiar
with the grooming process of the
preferential offender.
To effectively address child sexual
abuse risk, policies must clearly identify
and prohibit grooming behaviors within
the ministry program.
CHURCH EXECUTIVE.COM | 29