Abuse Prevention Training Now Required for Youth Leaders

[The Nehor]

10 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I identified your hyperbole. I never claimed to be or acted like "judge, jury, and executioner," Nehor. 

Agree with you on former denial, disagree on the latter denial.

[Amulek]

9 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

If the "good" people are crossing their personal boundaries, it can be more difficult to identify people with bad intent.

Any evidence that this is the case? 

I'm sorry, but this is one I hear bandied about in these discussions all the time: how one-on-one interviews normalize inappropriate behavior and make children more susceptible to abuse or what-have-you. 

Well, the church has been doing these interviews for decades now, so if there is any data that shows our youth are statistically more likely to be taken advantage of than their cohorts I would love to see it.

Seriously. I would love to see it. 

Why rely on alleged horror stories of interviews gone wrong? Why not just show us the data and be done with it? 

 

[Meadowchik]

10 hours ago, Amulek said:

Any evidence that this is the case? 

I'm sorry, but this is one I hear bandied about in these discussions all the time: how one-on-one interviews normalize inappropriate behavior and make children more susceptible to abuse or what-have-you. 

Well, the church has been doing these interviews for decades now, so if there is any data that shows our youth are statistically more likely to be taken advantage of than their cohorts I would love to see it.

Seriously. I would love to see it. 

Why rely on alleged horror stories of interviews gone wrong? Why not just show us the data and be done with it? 

 

Valid question. Does the church keep a statistical record of known sexual abuse cases involved members who are victims of predators within and outside the church? If it does, I've not heard of it, but I think such records and a reporting system available to all members would be a good thing.

Horror stories aren't an invalid alert, however. Quite the contrary. I've listened to an experienced prosecutor describe the predatory process, and it is something that requires certain factors, things like proximity to victims, and opportunity to groom victims.  Most cases of sexual abuse involve people the victim already knows, so obviously all individuals and groups need to be cautious and alert to the possibility of predators participating in order to be closer to potential victims. Further still, groups would reasonably do better to deter predators by limiting factors the predator seeks: reducing if not eliminating access and opportunity. So, the two-deep standard is great: make it against policy for an adult to be alone with minors.

Are you with me, Amulek? Do you see the logic of identifying the predatorial process, and then reducing the ways a predator can exploit the church in their process? 

[Calm]

25 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Do you see the logic of identifying the predatorial process, and then reducing the ways a predator can exploit the church in their process? 

As long as one doesn't also reduce the ways predators can be identified and reported and protected against as well as victims helped.

[Meadowchik]

45 minutes ago, Calm said:

As long as one doesn't also reduce the ways predators can be identified and reported and protected against as well as victims helped.

This assumes that there is a special relationship with the reporting process, right? What is it, if anything, about the church (or any group) that enables the reporting process?

[Meadowchik]

Since Calm didn't respond (as of yet) to my question, I will go ahead and make this point: reports of abuse are not always obvious, especially from children. When a child tries to report to a trusted adult, the adult might not recognize it. Therefore, IF an organisation wants to be a place that can help abuse victims by receiving reports of abuse, education is most certainly needed: a leader needs to learn how to recognize potential reports of abuse and also how to encourage the disclosure without asking leading questions. 

[Kenngo1969]

On 8/22/2019 at 5:26 PM, Amulek said:

Why rely on alleged horror stories of interviews gone wrong? Why not just show us the data and be done with it? 

 

Because, except in extremely rare cases, the data would not and very likely does not fit the narrative of those with agendas to push and axes to grind.  You're welcome.  Anything else?

[Calm]

I don’t have energy of focus to dig it out, but Hamba has referenced a study that showed kids didn’t always report to the obvious person, such as a police officer. Iirc, the study had librarians as one of kids’ go tos.  If clergy (and this should be studied, not just assumed for the varying types, lay clergy may be seen as different than professional clergy...not sure if that is the right word) is one of the go to report groups for kids, making them less approachable by adding requirements before testing their comparative value (they may make adults feel safer, but kids may feel the opposite and clam up) is self defeating, imo.

I agree that if we want kids to use any group as a report outlet, then training makes sense, but again let’s make sure the training works for the kids and not just makes adults feel better. 

[Kenngo1969]

30 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Since Calm didn't respond (as of yet) to my question, I will go ahead and make this point: reports of abuse are not always obvious, especially from children. When a child tries to report to a trusted adult, the adult might not recognize it. Therefore, IF an organisation wants to be a place that can help abuse victims by receiving reports of abuse, education is most certainly needed: a leader needs to learn how to recognize potential reports of abuse and also how to encourage the disclosure without asking leading questions. 

I appreciate your concern about the possibility that adults may not recognize reports of abuse for what they are.  Also, as someone whose reputation has been trashed by people who have had axes to grind, I think it's important to guard against that, as well.

[Calm]

1 minute ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Because, except in extremely rare cases, the data would not and very likely does not fit the narrative of those with agendas to push and axes to grind.  You're welcome.  Anything else?

I don’t think there is any way to demonstrate this conclusion or any other at this point.

Do you have any suggestions how anyone here might find such data?  Perhaps anyone outside those in the church who keep track of such things and the police or perhaps CPS?

[Meadowchik]

9 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I appreciate your concern about the possibility that adults may not recognize reports of abuse for what they are.  Also, as someone whose reputation has been trashed by people who have had axes to grind, I think it's important to guard against that, as well.

Right! That is where knowing how to properly respond to a disclosure is crucial. The idea is that the adult does not want to lead the child (intentionally or not, we all have our blind spots) to the adult's preconcieved conclusions, nor do they want to ignore a cry for help. Thus, education!

[Meadowchik]

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don’t have energy of focus to dig it out, but Hamba has referenced a study that showed kids didn’t always report to the obvious person, such as a police officer. Iirc, the study had librarians as one of kids’ go tos.  If clergy (and this should be studied, not just assumed for the varying types, lay clergy may be seen as different than professional clergy...not sure if that is the right word) is one of the go to report groups for kids, making them less approachable by adding requirements before testing their comparative value (they may make adults feel safer, but kids may feel the opposite and clam up) is self defeating, imo.

I agree that if we want kids to use any group as a report outlet, then training makes sense, but again let’s make sure the training works for the kids and not just makes adults feel better. 

Yes! And btw I feel that "not having the energy" part. I hope you are well.

Edited August 24, 2019 by Meadowchik

[Kenngo1969]

22 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don’t think there is any way to demonstrate this conclusion or any other at this point.

Do you have any suggestions how anyone here might find such data?  Perhaps anyone outside those in the church who keep track of such things and the police or perhaps CPS?

If you disagree, that's fine.  I'll leave you to your disagreement, you can leave me to my opinion, and we'll all live happily ever after!

[Kenngo1969]

13 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Right! That is where knowing how to properly respond to a disclosure is crucial. The idea is that the adult does not want to lead the child (intentionally or not, we all have our blind spots) to the adult's preconcieved conclusions, nor do they want to ignore a cry for help. Thus, education!

Unfortunately, reputational damage occurs even when adults do not lead children.

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

If you disagree, that's fine.  I'll leave you to your disagreement, you can leave me to my opinion, and we'll all live happily ever after!

Do you believe the data is there?  Do you believe it is accessible?  I would love to have some ideas on how to collect it as my belief is that children’s interaction with leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ would show that it adds greater protective qualities than endangering ones.  But such comments are only speculation without some documentation. 

Edited August 24, 2019 by Calm

[Meadowchik]

15 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Unfortunately, reputational damage occurs even when adults do not lead children.

It's not an easy problem to respond to reports and disclosures, of course! 

[Calm]

Ken, the problem with that type of criticism is it can just as easily be reversed against you if you don’t have the data either.

Reversed rhetoric:

‘The church has been doing these interviews for decades now, so if there is any data that shows your youth are statistically more likely to be safer than their cohorts I would love to see it.  Why not just show us the data and be done with it? 

Because, except in extremely rare cases, the data would not and very likely does not fit the narrative of those with agendas to defend and banners to fly.  You're welcome.  Anything else?’

[Meadowchik]

55 minutes ago, Calm said:

Do you believe the data is there?  Do you believe it is accessible?  I would love to have some ideas on how to collect it as my belief is that children’s interaction with leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ would show that it adds greater protective qualities than endangering ones.  But such comments are only speculation without some documentation. 

Lots of other churches seem to be tackling this issue and engaging in some heavy introspection. And, the statistics are not always clear, as we see with the not-that-old claim that Utah ranks first in these types of abuse cases. We can only have data when people choose to collect it, and even then, the methodology has an impact. So, I think that, reasonably, we cannot wait for data, and have to consider best practices with what we can know now.

Edited August 24, 2019 by Meadowchik

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Do you believe the data is there?  Do you believe it is accessible?  I would love to have some ideas on how to collect it as my belief is that children’s interaction with leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ would show that it adds greater protective qualities than endangering ones.  But such comments are only speculation without some documentation. 

In answer to both of your questions, due to the nature of the interactions and the venue and circumstances under which they occur, I doubt it.  Even data drawn from criminal justice system sources is difficult to obtain, may not provide an accurate picture due to plea bargaining, sealed documents, and other such issues.  I agree that in the absence of such data, any conclusion one way or the other is, to a greater or lesser degree, speculative.

 

Edited August 24, 2019 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Ken, the problem with that type of criticism is it can just as easily be reversed against you if you don’t have the data either.

Reversed rhetoric:

‘The church has been doing these interviews for decades now, so if there is any data that shows your youth are statistically more likely to be safer than their cohorts I would love to see it.  Why not just show us the data and be done with it? 

Because, except in extremely rare cases, the data would not and very likely does not fit the narrative of those with agendas to defend and banners to fly.  You're welcome.  Anything else?’

I agree.  I cannot stop anyone from drawing a contrary conclusion if she wishes to do so.

[Tacenda]

deleted

Edited August 25, 2019 by Tacenda