( including peer sexual abuse ); ( 2 ) understand internal lines of communication ; and ( 3 ) understand legal reporting requirements . Without these fundamental steps , the following reconstruction is unlikely to occur .
In a well-trained school environment , policies related to peer-to-peer behavior are clearly communicated to all students . In the hypothetical above , the behavior of the aggressor child constitutes a clear departure from acceptable conduct . When this behavior is made known to school leaders , the following actions occur , without delay .
Notify the authorities In accord with school policy , a school representative immediately reports the abusive behavior to law enforcement authorities . In all respects , school personnel comply with legal reporting requirements , and cooperate freely and fully with law enforcement or child protective services in any resulting investigation . To the extent possible , the identity and privacy of the victim is protected , but not at the expense of compliance with legal reporting requirements or resulting investigation , regardless of the wishes or concerns of the victimized child ( or the child ’ s parents ). Reporting to authorities occurs FIRST , in accord with internal school policy . In peer-to-peer sexual abuse contexts , the appropriate report is to law enforcement in the county where the sexual abuse occurred , unless there is a specific process otherwise .
Care for the victimized child In a victim-centric environment , school leaders take immediate steps to support the victimized child and notify the child ’ s parents , making full and transparent disclosure , and taking steps to implement appropriate care for the child , if necessary or requested . This might mean offering counseling with a licensed professional counselor of the family ’ s choice , and certainly requires direct and personal interaction with the child ’ s parents or caregivers . When care for the victimized child is not prioritized , injury to the child is compounded .
Remove the aggressive child The aggressor child must be immediately removed . If the behavior is admitted or corroborated by others , the abuser should be immediately and permanently removed from the school environment . The school ’ s priority must be the well-being of the victimized child who was harmed by the abusive behavior of the aggressor child . If the abusive behavior is not admitted , or no witnesses are known , the aggressor child should be removed during the pendency of any investigation , whether external ( law enforcement ) or internal . Keep in mind , false allegations are rare ; more than 90 percent of outcries are real and factual . In general , all decision-making should occur through the lens of ‘ what is best for the victimized child ’, rather than any other perspective .
Notify other parents Depending on the facts , it might be necessary to notify parents of other children who might have been mistreated by the aggressor child . Parents are the primary protectors of their own children : arming parents with information allowing them to take steps to communicate with and safeguard their children is ethically correct and in accord with the partnership fostered between parent and school . This information should be communicated to school families with transparency , reinforcing trust and the perception that the school cares — about the victimized child and other students who might have been negatively impacted . Transparency indicates concern for the ongoing relationship of trust between parents and school officials , who have prioritized student safety and parent trust over concern for reputation , brand or public perception . While perhaps counterintuitive , transparency inevitably strengthens the brand , rather than harming it . Clearly , this degree of transparency doesn ’ t align with an organization-centric approach .
When a ministry fails to communicate with parents when it would be reasonable to do so , the opposite result is likely . When information with a child safety component is withheld , and parents later learn of it , the negative reaction can be significant and severe .
Parents inevitably assign MOTIVE :
• The ministry was attempting a cover-up .
• The ministry cares about the other child ’ s family more than mine .
• The ministry cares more about its reputation than my child .
• Ministry leaders had information to protect their children , but didn ’ t equip me to protect mine .
Notifying the public Depending on the circumstances , it might be necessary to make a public statement . When necessary , the guiding principles are similar to those related to notifying parents ; transparency should characterize the statement , rather than any attempt to obfuscate facts . When no disclosure is made in a circumstance where a public statement is warranted , the downside can be extreme , especially when mainstream and social media begin to generate a narrative , which generally alleges some level of ‘ cover-up ’.
Internal investigation In many cases , a fact-finding inquiry within the ministry is valuable :
• Was the inappropriate conduct isolated or widespread ?
• Does a particular program or setting have an unhealthy culture ?
• Did a policy violation occur ?
• Do staff need more training ?
• Should counseling resources be provided to children who were negatively impacted ?
Before an internal investigation begins , ministry leaders should clearly lay out the purpose of the fact-finding inquiry or investigation . Factgathering can be useful to the ministry when it occurs with a victimcentric approach , concurrent with providing care for the victim ( s ) and after notifying authorities . In an organization-centric paradigm , an internal investigation often precedes care for victims or reporting . It ’ s appropriate to gather facts , but never investigate as a condition of reporting ; report first , and let child protective services or law enforcement take appropriate steps . When fact-gathering occurs with an organization-centric approach , a perception of ‘ cover-up ’ commonly emerges . If enough information exists to initiate an internal investigation , a report to authorities must occur . Remember , legal reporting requirements mandate the report of any reasonable suspicion of abuse or neglect , not proof . In some cases , attempts to investigate internally can ‘ muddy the water ’ and disrupt efforts by law enforcement .
ERRORS TO AVOID In addition to perceptions of ‘ cover-up ’, there are other significant errors to avoid .
Avoiding criminal penalties Reporting child abuse and neglect is more than just a good idea : it ’ s the law in every state . One legacy of the Penn State scandal is a significant uptick in criminal prosecutions for ‘ failure to report ’. Following the crisis at Penn State , legislatures in most states amended mandatory reporting statutes to increase the penalties for failure to report , expanded the lists of mandatory reporters , removed or further narrowed clergy privilege , and listed a time period within which the report must occur . When an allegation is clearly reportable and a ministry fails to report to authorities but creates an investigative team or task force comprised of individuals from within , the perception is ‘ cover-up ’ — within the organization and in the public at large .
54 18 CHURCH EXECUTIVE • | STOP MAY CHILD / JUNE SEXUAL 2022 ABUSE churchexecutive . com