Recommendations for Preventing Child Sexual Abuse in Youth-Serving Organizations: Implications From an Australian Royal Commission Review of the Literature

Preventing CSA in YSOs

Prevention is most effective when it is part of an integrative organizational framework that promotes a safe climate, clear policies, and the use of best practice strategies (Saul & Audage, 2007). Moreover, a focus on creating prevention approaches that are rooted in strong theory and evidence-based practice whenever possible creates a strong foundation for the development of approaches that are most likely to be effective. At the same time, consideration should be given to the applied realities of prevention strategies, seeking to tailor approaches to the specific needs of particular YSO contexts. These factors, as well as the nascent status of prevention approaches directed at YSO CSA, should be kept in mind when reviewing the following discussion of prevention recommendations to improve YSO safety for the children and adolescents they serve.

Understanding Offenders’ Modus Operandi

Findings from a variety of studies have underscored the value of understanding abusers’ modus operandi as a foundation for the planning of prevention programs. The modus operandi of CSA offenders is defined as the “behavior prior to, during, and following sexual abuse” (Kaufman et al., 1998, p. 350) and remains one of the most important CSA risk factors for effective prevention programming to consider (Kaufman, Mosher, Carter, & Estes, 2006; Kaufman & Patterson, 2010; Leclerc, Proulx, & McKibben, 2005). To date, much of the research on this subject has employed the Modus Operandi Questionnaire (MOQ; Kaufman, 1994, 2015) to assess adult and juvenile child sex offenders’ approaches to abuse. The MOQ assesses key behavioral markers that characterize much of child sexual offending, including where offenders find and access their victims, what strategies they use to groom potential victims (and caregivers) prior to abuse onset, their use of bribes or enticements and threats or coercion to gain compliance in abusive acts, and tactics used to maintain victim silence after abuse onset (Kaufman, 1994, 2015)

Findings from these studies describe offenders’ behaviors, as well as differentiating offenders’ grooming behaviors, based on their relationship to the victim (Kaufman et al., 1998); the age of the offender (Kaufman et al., 1998); victim, perpetrator, and offense characteristics (Kaufman, Hilliker, & Daleiden, 1996); situational or environmental factors (Kaufman et al., 2006; Leclerc, Beauregard, & Proulx, 2008); and the resistance strategies employed by potential victims (Barber, Kaufman & Winchester, 2002; Leclerc, Wortley, & Smallbone, 2010). The majority of the literature, however, has focused on CSA in general rather than offending within organizational settings.

Modus Operandi in Organizational Settings

A small number of studies address the grooming patterns of CSA perpetrators in organizational settings. These investigations have identified offender characteristics and modus operandi that highlight the need for stronger prevention programming development based on a clearer understanding of salient risk factors (Erooga, Allnock, & Telford, 2012; Leclerc & Cale, 2015; Leclerc et al., 2005; Miller, 2013; Smallbone & Wortley, 2000; Sullivan & Quayle, 2012). What has been discovered about perpetrators’ behaviors in organizations provides some important insights into this phenomenon. CSA perpetrators in this context are likely to present with a late onset of offending, a high incidence of nonsexual crimes, a low incidence of chronic offending, a low incidence of “stranger” abuse, a low incidence of offender networking and collaboration, and a relatively low incidence of long-term planning. Interestingly, findings from these investigations suggest that rather than creating opportunities in YSOs for offending, many perpetrators appear to capitalize on the opportunities or organizational vulnerabilities that are presented to them. Offenders in one study reported that they took advantage of organizational processes that were “relaxed and complacent and, in a few cases, careless” (Erooga et al., 2012, p. 80). Likewise, Sullivan and Quayle (2012) explained how offenders in their sample took advantage of organizations that lacked a strong “culture of safety” and an “ethos of accountability.”

Even when suspicions were aroused, offenders often used “the adversarial nature of disciplinary procedures to personalize the issue, deny the charges, marginalize the accuser, and encourage others to take sides” (Sullivan & Quayle, 2012, p. 96). This strategy underscores the importance of rigorous investigations of CSA accusations, carried out by relevant authorities, prompted by responsible organizations in an environment of accountability regarding safety procedures (Sullivan & Quayle, 2012). Study findings also demonstrated that offenders take advantage of environmental factors that permit access to potential victims and, in some cases, a setting conducive to carrying out the abuse itself (Leclerc & Cale, 2015; Sullivan & Quayle, 2012). With this in mind, it has been suggested that opportunities to commit CSA can be significantly reduced by better regulating interactions between children and employees or volunteers, increasing onsite supervision, restricting or monitoring access to unsupervised facility areas (Leclerc & Cale, 2015; Leclerc et al., 2005; Sullivan & Quayle, 2012), implementing strong systems for oversight and accountability, and enhancing the physical visibility of settings through environmental design (Miller, 2013).

Situational Prevention Approaches (SPAs) to Address Sexual Violence

Rather than focusing solely on individuals, risk management also needs to address environmental factors (Beyer, Higgins, & Bromfield, 2005), in what is generally referred to as an SPA. Situational prevention is a theory for crime prevention rooted in more than 60 years of safe housing design and more than 25 years of successful community crime prevention around the world (Bullock, Clarke, & Tilley, 2010; Clarke, 1995; Cornish & Clarke, 2002). Cornish and Clarke’s (2002) situational prevention model (SPM) suggests that certain setting-based factors may allow or even facilitate criminal behavior. Conversely, limiting or eliminating such factors will reduce opportunities for crime, minimize rewards associated with perpetration, and prevent future crime. At the heart of the SPM are three criminological theories: defensible space theory (Newman, 1972), routine activity theory (Cohen & Felson, 1979), and rational choice theory (Cornish and Clarke, 2002). This criminological approach provides a framework for examining the contextual and situational risks that increase the potential for crimes to occur in a given setting (Clarke, 1995; Clarke & Homel, 1997). Drawing from these theories, SPM assumes that (a) perpetrators are active decision makers, continually evaluating the likelihood of successfully committing a crime and balancing these odds against the possibility of incurring consequences; (b) the presence of a motivated offender, an available victim, and the potential for compromised supervision through lack of a capable guardian; and (c) environmental factors, both physical and symbolic, can contribute to the risks of crime occurring in a particular situation or setting. In summary, the SPM is a probabilistic model, concerned with factors that either increase or decrease an offender’s perception that they could successfully perpetrate a crime.

Education and Training Strategies

Education and training strategies may be the most commonly suggested approaches for the prevention of CSA (Kaufman, Sitney, & Glace, 2018; Wurtele, 2012). Training of this nature typically provides a foundation regarding common CSA risk factors, early signs of boundary violations and grooming, strategies for prevention, and how to report questionable behavior as well as suspicions of abuse (Wurtele, 2012). It is particularly important for those who work or volunteer in YSOs, and for those who represent YSOs’ leadership, to be knowledgeable about CSA in YSOs (Mathews & Collin-Vézina, 2016; Wurtele, 2012). Key foundational areas include what acts constitute CSA; its prevalence; who experiences CSA and at what ages; who perpetrates abuse; the criminality of CSA; the serious harms and consequences typically caused to the child, their family, and the host organization; many organizations reluctance to report abuse (i.e., given the potential impact on their reputation, funding, etc.); how children typically disclose CSA; common emotional, social, and behavioral responses of children after victimization; principles of consent, children’s rights, and gender equality; professional boundaries and appropriate versus inappropriate interactions with children; duties to report known and suspected cases of abuse (based in both law and policy); how to respond to concerns and disclosures; and how to respond and report in different kinds of circumstances. Moreover, education and training should be designed and delivered to different YSO groups: professionals and volunteers, YSO leaders, children and youth themselves, and parents (Kaufman & Erooga, 2016; Kaufman, Erooga, et al., 2018; Mathews & Collin-Vézina, 2016; Wurtele, 2012).

These educational strategies are typically implemented either through in-person training or via web-based training. Evidence suggests the efficacy of online training, which is easily implemented and has a minimal delivery cost for large groups of parents, children, and professionals (Kenny, 2007; Paranal, Thomas, & Derrick, 2012; Rheingold, Zajac, & Patton, 2012). Paranal and colleagues (2012) examined online prevention training for volunteers and employees of YSOs and found it to be an effective tool for enhancing prevention education. At the same time, however, there are indications that organizations may benefit more from in-person training due to the added insights gained from discussions between trainers and participants (Paranal et al., 2012). Furthermore, Rheingold and colleagues (2012) found that both in-person and web-based training in the prevention of CSA were feasible to implement and acceptable to professionals. However, when comparing formats, the in-person format was favored in terms of participant comfort level and the likelihood of sharing information with others. This study also found that technology issues inhibited some participants from engaging in web-based training. Taken together, these studies suggest that in-person and online training approaches each have strengths and limitations. It seems that online training, with its potential to reach a greater number of individuals and its lower cost, compared with in-person training, could be enhanced to offer an online discussion component that would make it the clear favorite between these two approaches. At the same time, it is important to consider whether technology-based training platforms restrict accessibility by traditionally underfunded YSOs who are more likely to serve marginalized communities.

Whether it is in-person or web-based training, most researchers agree that CSA education and prevention training is necessary for all YSO employees and volunteers working with children (Kenny, 2007; Mathews, 2011, 2017; Mathews & Collin-Vézina, 2016; Wurtele, 2012; Wurtele, Mathews, & Kenny, 2018). Wurtele (2012) argued that “education is the cornerstone of preventing CSA and sexual boundary violations by YSO staff members” (p. 248). At the same time, however, she clarified that only a handful of exceptional organizations actually provide prevention training. She goes on to encourage YSOs to integrate prevention training into their staff and volunteer orientation and education. Irenyi and colleagues (2006) made a similar point regarding the need for broad-based professional training, noting the importance of incorporating training for teachers to address child protection issues and the potentially positive and long-lasting impact of such protective efforts. They highlighted the need for vigilance in all YSOs and recommended that teachers and other professionals working with children also be trained in the situational crime prevention approaches. In some countries, governmental funding is already supporting the development of online training for professionals working with children in other areas. For example, the Australian Government’s Department of Health is funding the Australian Psychological Society to create evidence-based online learning modules to improve their understanding of the issues faced by people affected by past forced adoption policies and practices (www.psychology.org.au/forced-adoption). This training was designed to educate health and allied health professionals. A similar model could be applied to training for organizations in how to be “child safe,” which would support existing resources and accreditation programs (e.g., the Australian Childhood Foundation’s Safeguarding Children Program: www.safeguardingchildren.com.au) as well as foster comprehensive training across YSOs.

Applying Prevention Strategies in Nonmajor YSOs

While much of the literature focuses on policy and prevention strategies in general, few studies have focused on settings outside major organizations such as schools, sports, medical/health care settings, and churches. Studies examining nonmajor organizations have investigated juvenile correctional facilities, day care nurseries, and day camps. In a study of youth incarcerated in juvenile correctional facilities, Beck et al. (2010) reported a high prevalence of sexual victimization and suggested the need to integrate effective prevention programming in such settings. Abner, Browning, and Clark (2009) developed a sexual abuse prevention guide specifically for frontline community correction officers and supervisors working in youth correctional facilities. The guide offers a broad range of recommendations to enhance prevention of CSA, including clearly establishing professional boundaries, informing inmates of their right to be protected, and creating a culture of zero tolerance for sexual abuse.

Wonnacott (2013) focused on CSA in nurseries (day care centers), suggesting that offenders may consider them an ideal environment for perpetrating. Wonnacott identified the limitations of relying solely on basic safety policies and procedures in such a setting with its complex environmental and relational risk factors and instead urged the use of a more dynamic framework based on the SPM (Cornish & Clarke, 2002) that can address the whole system encompassed by each particular nursery.

Finally, Johnson (2014) examined the policies of five separate day camps (including nonresidential recreational activity facilities), serving approximately 300 children, by interviewing the camp directors. Study findings indicated that, for the most part, these camps lack a written policy for preventing and addressing CSA and had failed to educate staff about early warning signs of CSA, symptoms of CSA, or related concerns as part of their onboarding orientation. Moreover, nearly all of the camp directors themselves struggled to identify the steps they would take to address a CSA allegation at their camp. Johnson (2014) recommended that camp directors be better educated on the importance of developing policies and procedures pertaining to the protection of campers and staff. Best practice would dictate the development of written policies, completion of staff orientation and participation agreements, and the purchase of insurance to ensure that both children and staff members were protected in the event of CSA allegations (Johnson, 2014).

Recommendations for YSO Policy Enhancements

There is now a general consensus about the types of strategies that should be adopted by YSOs to minimize risk and ensure appropriate safety responses. This is evident in approaches and organizational tools proposed by the CDC (Saul & Audage, 2007), the Australian Childhood Foundation (Tucci, Mitchell, Holmes, Hemsworth, & Hemsworth, 2015), by leading scholars (Kaufman, Erooga, et al., 2018; Kaufman, Erooga, Higgins, & Zatkin, 2018; Kaufman, 2010; Kenny & Wurtele, 2012; Leclerc & Cale, 2015; Wurtele, 2012), and by strategies that have been adopted in other areas of intervention with children (Parent & Demers, 2011; Walsh et al., 2013). Of note is the fact that the CDC has recently secured funding to update its 2007 publication on prevention in YSOs to better reflect prevention directions for enhancing safety in YSOs.

The existing literature suggests the need for clear organizational safety policies in six key areas that include (a) staff and volunteer screening, (b) establishing codes of conduct, (c) monitoring the implementation of safety practices, (d) creating safe organizational environments, (e) appropriately educating/training staff and volunteers, and (f) responding to as well as reporting child safety concerns (Mathews, 2017; Wurtele, 2012). Clearly defined and effectively implemented policies and practices are foundational to establishing a “safety culture” that protects children involved with YSOs (Saul & Audage, 2007; Tucci et al., 2015). In a report developed by a group of experts in collaboration with the CDC, Saul and Audage (2007) recommended institutional policies and strategies to enhance child safety in YSOs. In their document, the authors stressed the importance of creating “. . . a safe space, having clear goals pertaining to the prevention of CSA, creating a process for developing CSA prevention policies and practices, and including appropriate CSA policies and practices in the prevention plan” (pp. 33-34).

Theoretical and practical support for such approaches is found in the situational crime prevention and the offender modus operandi literatures. CSA offenders in Erooga et al.’s (2012) study, for example, noted that many of their YSO’s leadership failed to provide a clear organizational commitment to children’s welfare. In fact, most messages during onboarding for employment or volunteering offer no more than basic briefings about child protection. Many YSOs described by participants did not place an emphasis on providing clarity about organizational rules and regulations. In particular, expectations about the relationships between staff and youth were rarely spelled out and/or not consistently enforced. Some organizations were described as being more committed to managing children’s behavior than to ensuring their welfare. Researchers have similarly noted the gap between policy directives and implementation by YSOs (Quadara, Nagy, Higgins, & Siegel, 2015). This information is significant in that it helps guide YSOs in addressing common critical youth safety.

Given the emerging nature of this area, it is unsurprising that gaps remain in the literature regarding optimal prevention approaches. At the same time, however, there is broad consensus on the general characteristics of sound prevention approaches in YSOs. This raises the question of how broader policy efforts can and should support the creation and sustained implementation of prevention efforts across YSO “sectors” (i.e., major categories of YSOs, such as schools or youth sports organizations). Two recent studies examined the larger issue of governmental responses (or lack thereof) to national inquiries into organizational CSA. These studies focused on the recommendations that resulted from these inquiries and were intended to promote more effective prevention policies (Budiselik, Crawford, & Chung, 2014; O’Mahony & Kilkelly, 2014). Budiselik and his colleagues (2014) expressed concerns regarding the fact that recommendations resulting from CSA inquiries have typically not been implemented in Australia. They conclude by posing a question directed at Australia’s decision makers: “How can better outcomes be achieved from the effort put into inquiries?” (p. 580). Budiselik, Crawford, and Squelch (2009) urged both government authorities and the YSOs themselves not to rely exclusively on criminal history checks. Instead, they recommended broader government-authorized child protection strategies. Others have noted the need for specific prevention measures in YSOs to accommodate the heightened risk to children with disabilities (Robinson, 2015), based on multiagency collaboration, statutory oversight, and rights-focused practice guidelines for staff working with children (France, Munro, & Waring, 2010; Murray & Osborne, 2009). Along with governmental responsibility, researchers find that YSOs must also accept responsibility, on an individual basis, for their part in keeping children safe from sexual abuse by implementing policies rooted in evidence-based prevention practices and by actively taking responsibility for past safety transgressions (Bublick, 2014; Hildyard & Wolfe, 2002; O’Mahony & Kilkelly, 2014; Saul & Audage, 2007; Tucci et al., 2015).

Effective sectorwide policy development and support in this sense, combined with individual YSO efforts, can produce a more sustained impact and reach a greater segment of the population than isolated YSO prevention (Bunnell et al., 2012). Underlying effective policy change at this broader level may often require collaborative efforts to create new legislative or policy schemes by government and nongovernment agencies providing care and services to children (Her Majesty’s Government, 2013; New South Wales Government, 2006). Both lived experience and regulatory theory has demonstrated that it is not sufficient to allow YSOs unrestricted freedom to self-regulate their efforts without any oversight or external accountability (Mathews, 2017). Also, from perspectives of diversity and protection of the vulnerable—considering sex, religiosity, culture, and age—these policy mechanisms and oversight methods are crucially important considerations. CSA generally affects girls 2 to 3 times as frequently as boys (Stoltenborgh, Van, Ijzendoorn, Euser, & Bakermans-Kranenburg, 2011), boys are likely to experience CSA at higher levels in some religious settings (Wright et al., 2017), that closed religious settings are particularly resistant to change and independent governance (Smith & Freyd, 2014), that cultural factors also predispose CSA to silence and cover-ups (Fontes & Plummer, 2010), and that children generally are at an age and developmental stage of profound vulnerability at the typical age of onset.

An example of this broader sectorwide policy development and oversight can be seen in the Australian state of Victoria. In response to the findings of a state Inquiry, the Victorian Government created a legislative scheme in 2015 to implement a set of Child Safe Standards in a broad range of CYSOs (Mathews, 2017). The Child Wellbeing and Safety Act of 2005 (Vic) Part 6, s 17, together with a Ministerial Order, requires the following standards to be met by YSOs in multiple sectors (including education, early childhood education and care, out of home care, health, religious, cultural, sporting and recreation services, and other welfare services:

An independent body, the Commission for Children and Young People, has substantial powers of oversight and enforcement (Mathews, 2017). This Commission also provides other guidance to support YSOs in implementing the Standards (Victorian Commission for Children and Young People, https://ccyp.vic.gov.au/child-safety/being-a-child-safe-organisation/).

A second Australian example is also instructive. Similar to the earlier Victorian initiative, the Australian Government Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse made recommendations for the implementation of Child Safe Standards in YSOs. In its Final Report, the Royal Commission recommended that YSOs adopt comprehensive measures to prevent, identify, and respond appropriately to CSA, and that governments require implementation of these measures through legislative schemes (Australian Government Royal Commission, 2017, Recommendations 6.4-6.11). In condensed paraphrased form, Recommendations 6.4-6.11 state that

To date, individual Australian States and Territories have taken different steps to consider and implement these recommendations. In the state of New South Wales, the Children’s Guardian published nonbinding “Principles for Child-Safe Organisations” which were informed by Recommendations 6.4 to 6.11. In Western Australia, the Commission for Children and Young People has developed “Child Safe Organisations WA: Guidelines.” Most recently, at a national level, the federal government has engaged the Australian Human Rights Commission to develop a National Statement of Principles for Child Safe Organizations, with State and Territory Community Services Ministers supporting this work. The draft National Principles substantively duplicate the Child Safe Standards and have been agreed to by Community Services Ministers. They will be submitted to the Council of Australian Governments—a body comprising all State and Territory Community Services Ministers—for endorsement in late 2018 (Australian Human Rights Commission, 2018). It is not yet clear exactly how these National Principles will be translated into legislation or policy.

Future Directions for Prevention

In considering directions for the prevention of CSA in YSOs, it is useful to consider both the “big picture” and a more systematic public health framework for next steps in the field. In broadly considering how CSA is driven by a variety of factors concerning the victim, the perpetrator, and the situation or organization, Quadara and her colleagues (2015) argued that effective prevention demands strategies to address knowledge about each of these factors, integrated with each other. These strategies include (a) protective behaviors education for children, (b) situational crime prevention, (c) pre–criminal justice therapeutic interventions for problematic sexual behaviors and sexually abusive behaviors, (d) post–criminal justice involvement for therapeutic prevention of reoffending (with juvenile and adult offenders), (e) criminal justice and other statutory responses, and (f) therapeutic work with children/adolescents who have been sexually abused. In this way, organizational safety is maximized through multiple layered evidence-based prevention approaches that create a safety “patchwork” countering a broad array of organizational CSA risk factors. Similarly, and in addition, the broader sexual abuse prevention literature would suggest that work is needed at the population level to address the factors shown to facilitate CSA: socioemotional skill deficits, empathy deficits, attitudinal and cognitive distortions, a sense of sexual entitlement, and a construction of masculinity emphasizing sexual performance and dominance (Jewkes, Fulu, Roselli, & Garcia-Moreno, 2013; Seto, Babchishin, Pullman, & McPhail, 2015; Whitaker et al., 2008).

In addition to the broad focus on potential content areas for future research suggested by Quadara and colleagues (2015) as well as others in this review, there is a need for a framework to help develop a more systematic response to organizational CSA. With this in mind, we would encourage the adoption of the highly successful public health research approach (Lutzker & Wyatt, 2006; Rogers et al., 2010) as a process for enhancing safety in YSOs. This would involve a more concerted focus on research in five key domains. First, epidemiological and “basic” research to better understand the broad range of individual and situational strengths and risk factors that are salient in the YSO context, as well as how these factors differ based on critical organizational dimensions (e.g., type of service[s] provided, organizational size and staffing, and populations served). Second, intervention studies that draw from both theory and basic research to test the efficacy of various prevention strategies. These interventions would benefit from both, considering approaches that could be applied across organizations within a particular sector (e.g., across schools or across out-of-home care settings) and, at the same time, would allow for tailoring to the particular characteristics of individual YSOs (e.g., strengths, risks, and capacity). Third, investigations that focus on the role of leadership, policy, and climate enhancement to create organizational cultures that foster youth safety. While these areas are intertwined, efforts should be undertaken to separately examine the contribution of each to fostering organizational safety. Fourth, a multifaceted approach should be undertaken to better understand the differential strengths and risk factors associated with underserved communities utilizing YSOs. Research of this nature will allow for the development of prevention approaches tailored to the differential needs and drawing on the strengths of traditionally underserved youth and their families. Fifth, and finally, evaluation research would be especially useful in fostering the development of prevention approaches that are appropriate for broad dissemination in organizations across major YSO sectors (e.g., health care and schools). Early on in this emerging area, it will be important to encourage the incorporation of evaluation research into applied studies exploring the impact of specific YSO prevention approaches, policies, and climate interventions to help identify promising strategies. These studies will also provide feedback to hone theory and, once incorporated, can then facilitate more effective applied research. In the long run, large-scale evaluation studies (e.g., randomized control studies) will help move the field toward the goal of developing a broad array of evidence-based prevention approaches to effectively address key safety risk factors and in turn enhance children’s safety while participating in YSO programming.

Such a program of research will, of course, require adequate fiscal support to be successful. As noted, Australia has recently provided close to AUD400 million in support of its Royal Commission on CSA in YSOs as well as committing to many hundreds of millions of dollars more for the development of prevention programming to address identified child safety risks. This national commitment on the part of Australia provides a precedent and offers hope that other countries will embark on a more systematic response to organizational CSA in the near future.