Can we take one more news report of a child being sexually abused by a coach?  In the last calendar year, no area of youth sports has remained untouched by child sexual abuse.  Take for example:

*Robert 'Bobby' Dodd -- former president of the Amateur Athletic Union and youth sports basketball coach.  Dodd is currently under investigation by Memphis authorities for allegedly molesting two boys he coached in the late 1980s.

*Jerry Sandusky -- alleged to have used youth sports to access and sexually abuse nine to thirteen year-old boys.  This drama continues to unfold.

*Graham Jones -- junior  hockey coach accused of sexual abuse by former NHL player Theo Fleury while Fleury competed on a junior hockey team.

*Don Peters -- former US Olympics gymnastics coach, was removed from the sport's Hall of Fame and lost coaching privileges, permanently revoked, following an investigation of child sexual abuse.

These nationally reported youth sports tragedies received significant press and national attention; hundreds of others are reported on local and community levels.  Sadly, the same pattern exists whether the reporting is national or local.

Children in youth sports are being victimized.  We shouldn't need any more 'wake-up calls'.  We should respond.  What are we doing? What should we be doing?  Essentially: what's working, and what isn't?

Why are children at risk in youth sports?

Almost every kid in the U.S. has a sports hero, and sets goals to 'be like Mike' ... or Josh Hamilton, or Keven Durant, or Lindsey Vonn, or Drew Brees.  Youth sports fill an important role in our culture.  Further, young athletes spend a significant amount of time with coaches, team volunteers and teammates -- often with no direct parent supervision.  Children are taught and expected to obey team leaders without question -- parents enrolling children into a coach's team or program expect their child to be instructed and possibly disciplined by that coach.  Many young athletes grow to respect, trust and idolize coaches and other team leaders.  Young athletes are taught to demonstrate 'team loyalty', a sense of putting the team and its success over one's personal needs or concerns.

Additionally, many youth sports activities involve circumstances that increase the risk of predatory behavior.  Risk increases when an activity involves changing of clothes, use of showers and locker rooms, and equipment requiring assistance for application or removal.  Additionally, there is heightened risk when a sport involves physical contact, 'spotting' and body positioning.  Risk increases when a sport requires travel, overnight stays and shared rooms.  Different sports carry different and unique risks.

What are we doing to prevent abuse?

Organizations supporting youth sports are prolific, varied in scope and size -- and most are led by leaders who are aware that children are at risk of sexual abuse.  A random sampling of youth sport websites, however, demonstrates a serious lack of understanding of sexual abuse and sexual abusers.  If program leaders lack an understanding of the nature of this risk, they cannot effectively reduce this risk.

Criminal Background Check - is it enough?

Professionals in law enforcement and social services are reporting record spikes in questions regarding sexual abuse -- particularly in educational and sports contexts.  Youth sports organizations, too, are hearing from parents:

What are you doing to keep my child safe?  Common Answer: we do criminal background checks.

Next Question: what else do you do?  Common Answer: what do you mean?

Therein lies the problem ... given the facts like: Less than 10% of sexual abusers will ever encounter the criminal justice system.

Put differently, more than 90% of sexual abusers have no criminal record to check.  If your criminal background check worked with 100% efficiency (which it doesn't), and perfectly gathered every record in the country -- you would receive records of less than 10% of individuals desiring to sexually abuse children. 

Is this a reason to discontinue criminal background checks?  Of course not.  Criminal background checks are necessary and reasonable, the proverbial 'low-hanging fruit'; every organization providing services to children should make reasonable effort to access past criminal behavior of any applicant, but criminal background checks should not serve as a stand-alone safety measure.

Cases in point: Dodd, Sandusky, James and Peters (mentioned above), were allegedly victimizing children for years ... with no criminal background or prior prosecution.

Are criminal background checks 'working'?  If a criminal background check is being used as a stand-alone system to protect children from abuse ... no.  If a criminal background check is being used as one element of a safety system ... maybe.  it begs the next question: what is an effective safety system?  What should we be doing to reduce the risk of abuse in youth sports?

What should we be doing to reduce the risk of abuse in youth sports?

Again, what we should be doing to reduce risk of sexual abuse should be based on the facts related to sexual abuse and sexual abusers.  At a minimum, each youth sports program should develop a safety system, and the foundation of an effective system includes effective training of staff members and volunteers such that coaches, volunteers, and parents have 'eyes to see and ears to hear' grooming behaviors utilized by predators.

Sexual Abuse Awareness Training provides staff members, team volunteers and parents with information regarding abuser characteristics, the grooming process (the process by which a predator selects and prepares a child for sexual abuse), common grooming behaviors, warning signs of abuse, reporting responsibilities, and more. 

With the facts, youth sports employees, volunteers and participants are better equipped to reduce the risk of child sexual abuse.  At the same time, leadership and participants can create an environment that communicates to a would-be abuser that the barriers of protection have been raised.

As well, accurate information about sexual abuse and sexual abusers helps program leaders prepare policies and procedures related to particular sports activities and facilities.  The same accurate information assists participants in understanding/implementing those policies and procedures.

In the next five years, more and more state legislatures will require Sexual Abuse Awareness Training in Youth Sports programs.  At present, the state of Texas requires abuse awareness training for youth camps, days camps, public schools, charter schools, day care centers, child-placing agencies, and programs for minors on college campuses.  Given the trend, required awareness training will continue to expand in Texas, and begin adoption through the U.S.

What should an effective safety system include?

An effective safety system to protect children from sexual abuse should include:

1. Sexual Abuse Awareness Training;

2. An Effective Screening System;

3. Tailored Policies & Procedures

4. An Appropriate Criminal Background Check;

5. A System to Ensure Monitoring and Oversight; and

6. Other system elements, depending on the type of activity.

Though Awareness Training is the foundation of any safety system, each of these elements is part of an integrated system, not as a stand-alone system in itself.  Click HERE to view a seven-segment video presentation on the creation of a safety system.

Where can I find Sexual Abuse Awareness Training?

Is it available online?

Where can I get help in the design and implementation of a safety system?

Abuse Prevention Systems and MinistrySafe provide live and online Sexual Abuse Awareness Training; both are state-approved trainings by the Texas Department of State Health Services (the only entity at present that approves such trainings).  Members of Abuse Prevention Systems and MinistrySafe have access to sample policies, screening forms, and an online control panel which generates training links and tracks completion and renewal, in compliance with new state law.

Learn more at www.AbusePreventionSystems.com and www.MinistrySafe.com.

About the Authors

Love & Norris, Attorneys at Law

Gregory Love and Kimberlee Norris have a nationwide sexual abuse litigation practice representing victims of sexual abuse throughout the country.  In addition, they represent ministry and secular organizations such as schools, camps, churches, youth sports organizations, foster/adoption entities and para-church ministries.

Abuse Prevention Systems and MinistrySafe

In addition to an active law practice, Love and Norris are co-founders and Directors of Abuse Prevention Systems and MinistrySafe, entities dedicated to sexual abuse awareness and prevention.  MinistrySafe and Abuse Prevention Systems provide Sexual Abuse Awareness Training (live and online) and assist entities in the design and implementation of safety systems, which reduce the risk of child sexual abuse.  Love and Norris are frequent speakers before educational entities, youth and children's ministries, day care, adoption and foster care organizations, sports programs, and youth camps.  Recent national and regional audiences have included the National Association of Church Business Administration (NACBA), Kanakuk Kamps, National Council for Adoption (NCFA), Presbyterian General Assembly, Church of the Nazarene, Youth Ministry Institute (NOBTS), Prevent Child Abuse Texas, Texas Alliance for Children, Young Life, American Camp Association (regionally and nationally), Muscular Dystrophy Association (MDA), and International Network of Children's Ministry (INCM).

Effective September 1, 2011

On June 17, 2011, the Texas Governor signed SB 1414, which creates new requirements for 'institutions of higher education' that provide or host campus programs for minors.  Sexual Abuse Awareness Training is now required by the newly enacted Section 51.976 of the Texas Education Code.

What is a 'Campus Program for Minors' - Section 51.976(a)(2)

College campuses regularly host 'campus programs for minors' -- camps for various activities including athletics, cheerleading, debate, theater, dance, music, and more.  College campuses are usually teeming in the summers with high-school-aged students attending various programs, camps and conferences.

Sometimes these campus programs are created and provided by the college; other times, the programs are provided by third-parties that negotiate the use of campus facilities. 

The new legislation defines a 'campus program for minors' as any program that is (1) operated by or on the campus of an institution for higher learning; (2) for the purpose of recreation, athletics, religion or education; (3) for at least 20 campers; (4) who attend or temporarily reside at the camp for all or part of at least 4 days.

This is a very broad definition, and intended so by the legislature.

Who is Impacted by the New Law - Section 51.976(a)(4) and (5)

SB 1414 creates requirements for those who offer 'campus programs' - a host college/campus or the entity providing the program. [These can be identical when the campus program is created and hosted by the college.]  Though the term 'college' is used above, the definition of 'institution of higher learning' in the new law is much more broad, including all institutions from the University of Texas to Clarendon Community College (see Texas Education Code, Section 61.003 for a list of those entities covered by the new statute).

What is Required - Section 51.976(b) and (d)

Each campus program for minors has a program operator - whether an employee of the college or an independent third-party.  The program operator is responsible for staffing the program that delivers services to minors.  Each person employed in or by the program having contact with campers must complete a state-approved Sexual Abuse Awareness Training (see also analysis of the Texas Youth Camp Act, Texas Health and Safety Code, Section 142.001 et seq. ... YOUTH CAMP ACT ANALYSIS).

The program operator must submit information to the Texas Dept of State Health Services (TDSHS) demonstrating that each employee of the campus program for minors has completed a state-approved Sexual Abuse Awareness Training.  The training is to be renewed every 24 months; the program operator is to retain certificates of completion (or other written records of compliance) for 24 months, or until the employee renews the training.

What is Sexual Abuse Awareness Training

Sexual Abuse Awareness Training, generally, provides the following information: definitions and effects of sexual abuse and child molestation, typical patterns of behavior/methods abusers employ to victimize children (grooming behaviors), warning signs and symptoms associated with sexual abuse, requirements and methods for reporting suspected abuse, and recommended procedures to reduce the risk of sexual abuse.

Sexual Abuse Awareness Training serves as the foundation of any safety system designed to protect children from child sexual abuse.

Availability of Online Training

Section 51.976 requires only that the Sexual Abuse Awareness Training comply with the requirements of Chapter 141 of the Texas Health and Safety Code.  State-approved trainings can be obtained online.

State-Approved Awareness Training for Colleges

MinistrySafe and Abuse Prevention Systems provide live and online Sexual Abuse Awareness Training; both are state-approved trainings.  MinistrySafe and Abuse Prevention Systems members have access to sample child protection policies, screening forms, and an online control panel for generating training links and tracking completion and renewal, in compliance with the new state law.

Learn more at www.AbusePreventionSystems.com and www.MinistrySafe.com. 

Gregory S. Love, Esq

Kimberlee D. Norris, Esq

In 2009, the Texas Legislature passed Jenna's Law, calling for each public school district to adopt and implement policy aimed at preventing child sexual abuse.  This policy, according to the new law, was to implement methods for increasing teacher, student and parent awareness regarding sexual abuse of children.

in mid-June 2011, the Governor of Texas signed SB 471 into law, amending current law related to public schools, charter schools, day care centers and child placing agencies.  The overarching purpose of SB 471 requires child abuse and neglect training and policies in schools and child care facilities.

Private schools should take note.  Public schools enjoy protection from civil litigation that private schools do not.  SB 471 is an expansion of Jenna's Law, which created a new 'standard of care' for sexual abuse prevention in Texas schools.  This standard of care defines what is reasonable for organized educational activities in our state.  Because the same risks exist in private schools, private school behavior will be judged by the same standard of care laid out in Jenna's Law and SB 471.

CHANGES IN THE LAW FOR SCHOOLS -- the "WHAT"

Understanding new requirements for schools incorporated in SB 471 requires an understanding of the context of the original code sections being modified in the Education Code.  Click here to access a copy of SB 471 with analysis and appendicies containing all other code sections referenced in the new law.

HOW TO COMPLY WITH SB 471 -- the "HOW"

In response to requests from our school clients, we have prepared a step-by-step guide concerning compliance with the new requirements of SB 471.  Click here to access that guide.  For some schools, the new law simply requires a modification to existing systems; for others, it may require starting from scratch.  The step-by-step guide will direct all schools to tools created to make compliance possible and doable.

APPLAUDING THE LEGISLATION

Given reports of sexual abuse in Texas schools over the past five years, this piece of legislation is needed.  Thankfully, the Texas legislature does not join the ranks of those relying upon a different or more thorough criminal background check as a 'silver bullet' for child abuse prevention.  According to comprehensive studies, less than 10% of sexual abusers will EVER encounter the criminal justice system.  For the remaining 90% who abuse children, a more stringent criminal background check reveals nothing.

Though appropriate criminal background checks are necessary, the problem of child sexual abuse is best addressed by safety systems based on education and training: raising awareness of the frequency, indications of and methods to prevent sexual abuse, as well as 'grooming behaviors' of sexual abusers.  SB 471 requires this type of training.

ABOUT US

MinistrySafe and Abuse Prevention Systems provide ministry-based and secular trainings and policies to hundreds of Texas entities that provide services to children.  As attorneys, we closely follow changes in Texas law related to our realm of practice: child sexual abuse litigation and prevention.  Our goal is to provide excellent training and tools consistent with existing and new legal requirements, both live and online.  To learn more about online Sexual Abuse and Maltreatment Training, tracking systems, sample policies, HR screening forms and additional resources, go to www.MinistrySafe.com or www.AbusePreventionSystems.com.

Recently, Vienna Presbyterian Church of Vienna, Virginia made headlines by ‘trying to do the right thing’ about past sexual abuse at the hands of a student ministries director hired by the church.

 http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2011-05-09-vienna-virginia-church-abuse-case-lawyers-insurers_n.htm#uslPageReturn

(USA Today, May 10, 2011)

The article describes the struggle between church leadership and insurance defense counsel in detail, after church leaders recognized that a former youth director had victimized girls in the church’s youth group.

No one today will argue the fact that child sexual abuse is occurring in the evangelical Christian church; this is a significant problem all by itself.   The problem is exacerbated by the fact that many church and ministry leaders misunderstand, minimize, ignore or mishandle warning signs and victim outcries.  When church and ministry leaders finally stop to address a sexual abuse outcry, the matter has become multifaceted and seemingly impossible to balance.  Church and ministry leaders soon realize that their ship is in rocky waters – some they can see and others they cannot. 

At this point, church and ministry leaders usually ask: how did we get here; do we have a meaningful safety system,* what is our exposure; what are the ‘rocks’ that surround us; how do we move forward, and how do we balance all of the competing interests?

When an outcry of sexual abuse finally rises to the attention of leadership, there are many immediate challenges, including the balance of discretion versus disclosure.  The first inclination is usually one of limiting who knows what.  Public perception is critical to the church; nonetheless, state laws mandate the reporting of actual and suspected sexual abuse.   When a matter is investigated, beat reporters will pick up the story – sexual abuse stories (especially those involving churches) are eagerly reported.  How does leadership balance the inclination to withhold negative information, yet comply with the law?  How does leadership balance what and when to tell the congregation (especially when the matter will be reported in the media)?  How does leadership balance the needs of the victims with the fact that the accused is a trusted member of the staff?   How does leadership balance the HR issues during a pending investigation?  How does leadership balance its desire to provide healing to victims and the risk of legal liability stemming from actions meant to facilitate healing?

This last challenge is usually the most difficult, involving many pressures that most onlookers will never see or appreciate.  Vienna Presbyterian Church understood this difficulty – and chose a brave and narrow path.  

To understand and appreciate VPC’s choice, some explanation is needed.  Most churches have a Commercial General Liability insurance policy (CGL) that provides coverage for injuries that occur in or related to church programming.  Virtually every CGL policy requires that the church give notice to the insurer as soon as the church has information about an event that may trigger a claim.  Because church leaders often misunderstand, minimize and ignore warning signs and victim outcries, they also fail to notify the insurance carrier, which can easily lead to denial of coverage.  In addition to the CGL reporting requirement, there is also a cooperation clause that requires an insured church to participate in the defense of a potential claim and to do nothing that would be detrimental to an insurance company’s attempt to defend a claim. 

When church leaders provide ‘notice of a potential claim’ relating to child sexual abuse, insurance companies take them very seriously.  Insurance companies understand that child sexual abuse claims are very dangerous: there are often multiple victims, they are expensive to defend, they are emotionally charged and the jury awards/settlement amounts can be unpredictably high.  Insurance companies understand that HOW a church handles the matter can seriously impact exposure, costs and awards (i.e. perception of a cover-up or an admission of responsibility).  When an insurer receives a notice of a potential claim, the insurer will usually engage legal counsel for the insured church.  The lawyer engaged by the insurance company for the church is in the uncomfortable position of owing a fiduciary duty to the insured church, while being paid by the insurance company to defend the claim.

The stage is now set for the church to make a very difficult decision – a decision that will have serious potential consequences no matter what direction is chosen.   This is further complicated when the church has ignored or mishandled earlier outcries.

The victims and the congregation want to know that church leaders will be transparent and pastoral – they want to know if leadership has mishandled a matter and, if so, to apologize and seek forgiveness.  After all, they are shepherds who are supposed to model ownership of failures.

To make such an admission, however, would create serious risks in a civil lawsuit and insurance coverage related to the claims in the suit.  Admitting responsibility for failing to sufficiently screen an employee or mishandling a prior outcry forms the basis of a negligence claim.  This is exactly the type of admission a plaintiff’s lawyer would rely upon to make his/her case; and the insurance company knows that.  Insurance companies will therefore clearly communicate to church leaders that the CGL policy strictly prohibits such admissions for poor screening/supervision or failed handling of an outcry, as doing so can jeopardize insurance coverage.  Unfortunately, these are usually the exact types of expressions that victims need to hear so they can heal and forgive.

Vienna Presbyterian Church arrived at that crossroad, and got clear instructions from GuideOne, its insurer, not to make statements acknowledging any prior mishandling.  The VPC leadership, however, seemed to clearly understand the needs of the victims and balanced those needs with the risk of denied coverage.  Notwithstanding the GuideOne instructions, the VPC leadership publicly addressed the abuse victims in writing and from the pulpit admitting mistakes, accepting responsibility and apologizing. 

At present, no civil lawsuit related to the sexual abuse has been filed against Vienna Presbyterian Church; it is possible that none will.  Sexual abuse injuries have very emotional components, which include betrayal of trust, isolation, guilt and anger.  Oftentimes, victims do not want to sue their church – they want compassion, not compensation.  Commonly, victims and families will sue their church only after the church has refused to own responsibility and has further isolated them.  In short, they sue because they are frustrated and angry.  When a church (even one that has mishandled an outcry) comes alongside the victim to accept responsibility and apologize, this is oftentimes enough – and no claim is ever filed. 

Vienna Presbyterian Church understood their position, weighed their options, and chose to be a shepherd to its flock – even if being a shepherd meant that insurance coverage for future claims would be placed at risk.  By choosing to shepherd, it is possible that the claim will never be filed.  We shall see. 

Make no mistakes, the decision VPC made took courage and may have significant costs.  Nonetheless, it is refreshing to know that VPC placed the victims first.  That’s what Good Shepherds do.   

*Every ministry should have a safety system in place that includes Awareness Training, tailored policies & procedures, and an effective screening system (which includes but is not limited to a background check).  Though it is possible to have an outcry even with a working system in place, it is far less likely. 

Gregory Love and Kimberlee Norris are partners at the law firm of Love & Norris, a national sexual abuse litigation practice representing victims of child sexual abuse, primarily in the context of cults. In addition, the firm represents organizations and ministries in legal matters related to child safety and sexual abuse.

Gregory Love and Kimberlee Norris also serve as directors of MinistrySafe, a consulting organization designed to help churches, schools and Christian ministries understand and address child safety risks related to sexual abuse. For additional information concerning safety systems and tools designed for the churches and schools, see www.MinistrySafe.com.

MinistrySafe provides tools assisting church and school administrators with each safety system element referenced in this article. MinistrySafe members have access to sexual abuse awareness training online, skillful screening forms, policies and procedures and a customized Administrative Control Panel, which tracks training, background checks, applications, interviews and references.

Because it's a foundational piece of an educational model meant to reduce risk.

After years of litigating sexual abuse cases, we have concluded that effective prevention occurs only when employees and volunteers have 'eyes to see and ears to hear' common grooming behaviors. And it's important that ALL employees and volunteers who work directly with children have the training, rather than relying upon a few key employees to catch inappropriate behaviors in the midst of performing often frenetic ministry work.

In addition, policies and procedures will have limited impact on staff members and volunteers without eplaining 'why'. Without an understanding of 'why', expect limited engagement and a resistance to change. Effective Awareness Training explains the safety principles behind policies and procedures.

Train your people to understand the problem.  The creation of safe environments for children's programming requires training.  When staff members and volunteers have an awareness of the basic characteristics of a sexual abuser, the process by which an abuser picks and prepares a child for abuse, and key indicators of child sexual abuse, they are better equpped to recognize and prevent abuse in church programs.

The introduction of any change in a ministry program may meet resistance from those asked to comply - espcially chages that place new responsibilities on volunteers.  If vulunteers and staff members are first trained, new policies make sense, and many emotional barrieres to change are replaced by a desire to be part of a system that protects those who cannot easily protect themselves - our children.

An effective safety system for the church should include the following components.  Each of these components is valuable as part of a program, but cannont creat a safe environment standing alone.

1. Sexual Abuse Awareness Training (for all staff members and volunteers).
2. An effective screening process (for screening and hiring of personnel, including volunteers).
3. An appropriate criminal background check.
4. Tailored policies and procedures
5. Effective monitoring and oversight of all ministry programs involving children or vulnerable adults.

Churches all over the country are dealing with the issue of Sexual Offenders:  How should church leadership respond?

First, keep in mind the sobering statistics.

The US Dept of Justice reports over 550,000 REGISTERED sexual offenders living in the United States today.

Conservative studies indicate that preferential offenders, offenders who prefer a child as a sexual partner, molest prolifically, in great numbers before criminal prosecution, assuming criminal prosecution occurs at all. 

A recent study of criminal populations indicated that male sexual abusers who preferred girls as sexual partners had molested an average of 52 victims prior to prosecution.

Male abusers who preferred boys as sexual partners had molested an average of 150 victims prior to prosecution.

These figures are AVERAGES; some had molested many more.

Department of Justice estimates indicate that less than 10% of sexual offenses will be prosecuted, EVER.  Why?  Studies of abuse survivors find repeatedly that nearly 2/3rds of abused children don’t tell about the abuse until adulthood, if ever. Those that do tell often find too much time has passed for criminal prosecution of the offender, or they simply are not believed.

What does this mean for church leadership?

The known RSO (registered sex offender) is the tip of the iceburg.  Congregations of all sizes have sexual offenders in the pews, they just don’t know it.

From our perspective, litigating sexual abuse cases for 16 years, the solution starts with a broad, church-wide safety system encompassing all ministry to children, students and teens.  Finding the few KNOWN sexual offenders and aiming all protective efforts at containing the known risk is naïve at best, and fraught with liability for the church.

Picture this:

After some controversy, First Church Cityview (fictional name) discusses, drafts, adopts and implements an RSO policy aimed at known offenders (RSOs).  In the meantime, a staff member is hired into children’s ministry with few screening or training requirements, and begins employ at First Church.  A superficial criminal background check is undertaken three months after the employee’s start date in children’s ministry, which reveals a ‘public exposure’ conviction some years prior.  The employee explains away the prior conviction as a ‘prank’ undertaken with college buddies.  Everyone LOVES the new employee, so his explanation is taken at face value.

Six years later, a 13 year old child in First Church’s children’s ministry is revealed to be in her second trimester of PREGNANCY.  Her halting explanation is shocking; the father of the child in utero is the children’s ministry employee, who has sexually assaulted her both before and after entering puberty.  Criminal investigation confirms paternity of the church employee, and other victims at the same church come forward to participate in the criminal prosecution.   The employee’s prior conviction related to a prior victim in a secular children’s program in another state. Because the prior conviction was a ‘first offense’, the employee was able to ‘plea down’ to a non-registry offense, which he was able to explain away to subsequent employers.

All the facts in this scenario are true, occurring in a large U.S. congregation.

This church had an RSO policy, but no effective policy concerning UNKNOWN offender risks.

So what should church leadership do to address this risk, known and unknown?

We’ll discuss an effective church safety system, NEXT.