The dangers of choosing an organization-centered response
SEXUAL ABUSE
REPORTING vs . REPUTATION
The dangers of choosing an organization-centered response
By Gregory Love & Kimberlee Norris
At a Christian school in West Texas , five employees were recently arrested and charged with ‘ Failure to Report with Intent to Conceal ’ after a teen reported he had been sexually assaulted on campus , by another student . Nine days later , four administrators from another Christian school in the same city were arrested for ‘ Failure to Report with Intent to Conceal Neglect or Abuse ’ related to a separate incident .
In each of these situations , school leaders were clearly required to report abuse allegations to the appropriate authorities : child protective services or law enforcement . Why was no report made ?
Sadly , it appears key administrators failed to report because the reputation of the organization was prioritized over child safety .
PRIORITIZING REPUTATION In the failures referenced above , it ’ s unclear what specifically motivated the decision-making of these school officials . Historically , abuse allegations go unreported when organizational leaders attempt to protect the organization ’ s reputation , public image or brand , rather than prioritizing child safety and transparency .
Protecting reputation Developing and preserving a positive reputation is not a bad thing ; in fact , it ’ s generally wise to embody and demonstrate trustworthiness and excellence . This is particularly true when an organization serves children — such as churches , schools , daycares or camps . When an organization serves children , it ’ s useful to have the trust and respect of the community — including families already served ( internal ) and prospective families ( external ). In child-serving ministry programs , ministry leaders are deeply invested in ministry purposes and programs and are working to advance the mission of the ministry . Further , many child-serving ministries are highly dependent on donations , tithes and gifts from stakeholders who understand and support the ministry ’ s mission . Commonly , child-serving organizations have high sensitivity to negative feedback , critical social media , and unfavorable reporting . In sum , developing and maintaining a positive image is deemed necessary and valuable .
Threats to reputation When a ministry faces a crisis , event or circumstance that places the ministry ’ s reputation at risk , various challenges unfold . In response , ministry leaders take active steps to address events or circumstances in a manner that protects or preserves a positive public image . In some circumstances , simply taking expedient action to solve the problem is appropriate ; elevating the issue by communicating to parents or others is not necessary . Where an allegation of child sexual abuse is concerned , however , expedient action to simply solve the problem is insufficient .
Paradigms for crisis response In crisis situations , a ministry ’ s response might be driven by a desire to protect the brand . This decision-making paradigm is organization-centric : decisions are made and actions are taken prioritizing preservation of the organization and its reputation . When a crisis relates to an allegation of child sexual abuse , however , a victim-centric approach is imperative . A victim-centric framework presupposes that decisions and actions support the well-being of the child — regardless of the impact on reputation or public perception . Where child sexual abuse is concerned , a victim-centric orientation is necessary and morally right . When the ministry is focused on other concerns — protection of the ministry or the alleged abuser — the outcome is ultimately unhealthy for the victimized child , ministry supporters and the ministry itself .
5216 CHURCH EXECUTIVE • | STOP MAY / CHILD JUNE SEXUAL 2022 ABUSE churchexecutive . com