Rate of known abuse incidents among LDS BSA troops

[Calm]

One of my FAIR friends has done a study to see (among several things) if claims the Church isn’t even close to fulfilling its responsibilities towards BSA victims because it is only paying 10% towards the package compensation total (please no arguments whether or not the compensation process BSA agreed to is moral or not, that is a different topic).  I, however, am using this article as best evidence we have so far of rates of abuse among LDS compared to the general public (recognizing that BSA volunteers are not the general public, but like I said “best evidence” so far).  If anyone has something they see as better or even at all to find rates, I am very interested.

TLDR:  While the Church had 20-30ish% of the troops, incident rate was only a little over 5%….which as a side note in this topic in regards to the compensation package means paying 10% could be said to be doubled what would be expected.  The important point for me is it seems to indicate at least in terms of specific callings with youth, rates are much lower than would be expected, a good sign that the Church does not create a great environment for child abusers to use to put themselves in positions of authority.

This does not address the noncalling issues for trusting neighbours, the person next to you on the pew, etc., but I thought is a useful point of data for the conversation.  I am interested in any critiques (preferably substantive of course  ).

https://publicsquaremag.org/sexuality-family/sexual-abuse/latter-day-saint-enigma-their-unexpected-troop-abuse-rates/?fbclid=IwAR0VSPy0bmBlZQN8OFKyuRfPbb2V6fe3I4ehBVWXoZtlfY9B0oPcFieRUZ4

The method and result briefly…

Quote

I decided to investigate. I called up Stephen Cranney, a Ph.D. statistical analyst, to consult on a plan of how to best answer this question. We decided to analyze 10% of the files based on random sampling (540 files). Then I went to work reading and coding these files, a process that took over 40 hours. 

Each file contains the name of the adult leader, some basic information about him (there are a handful of women in the database, but it’s 99% men), a summary of the abuse that is alleged, any relevant correspondence or legal documents, newspaper clippings, victim statements, photographs, and more. So, with some digging, it is possible to determine the percentage of abusers who came from a specific region, or a certain decade, or from troops sponsored by particular groups, including Latter-day Saint abuse.

About half of the files list the man’s religion, and almost all of them list the sponsoring agency. If a specific religion was listed, they were sorted based on those identifying cases of Latter-day Saint abuse.  If religion was not listed, but the troop’s sponsoring agency was listed, they were placed into the same categories. Files that listed neither religion nor sponsoring agency (25 total in my sample) were thrown out since it was impossible to confirm if they were affiliated with any church. We then replaced those with 25 randomly drawn files that did contain the needed information. 

The results were fascinating. Really fascinating. 

While Latter-day Saint church-affiliated troops made up 20-30% of all BSA troops, the proportion of Latter-day Saint abuse cases was far lower—5.16%, to be exact. 

 

[pogi]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

(preferably substantive of course  ).

Sigh, boooooooriiiiing!

[Dario_M]

But uhm.... you mean that the church doesn't do enough effort to prevent abuse within the church... or? 

Abusers mostely isolate their victums. And the abusers are really good in hidding it all anyway. That's why it's so dificult to discover when this is going on. 

[Calm]

10 hours ago, Dario_M said:

But uhm.... you mean that the church doesn't do enough effort to prevent abuse within the church... or? 

A lot of critics make this claim.  They push the idea the church is a haven for child abusers, etc because of the respect we have for authority and other aspects of the Church, both structural and cultural.  There are also critics who have good points, but many make assumptions without credible evidence, imo.  This study is useful imo for addressing some of these claims.

The study suggests to me at least one aspect of church structure has a very positive effect by lowering the rates of child abuse.  We don’t use the volunteer system to staff our callings, people are chosen by leaders out of our congregations to staff teaching and other positions.  And bishops and above are vetted in a couple of ways, I assume these days including a background check…though this won’t prevent most cases as I understand it.

 

Having said that, if you do volunteer for a calling, that will likely be considered and you might get it.  I always told leaders that I preferred working in Primary and I got callings to Primary all the time.  Being female may make a difference there now, but I doubt it would have when I was doing it.  It was pretty typical to have men teaching older Primary classes in many of the wards I was in.  I also volunteered to be Akela (Cub Scout leader), but I got that because no one else was available…which was why I volunteered in the first place.  I heard they were having a hard time filling it.  In Canada, they had men filling the spot rather than the kids’ mothers as happened in the States, but it was still not long after school let out, so not a lot of men available.  I was so grateful when the schedule of a much better candidate for the calling opened up and he could take over.  I had no experience in Scouting and was not that great at making sure the kids got all their work done for advancement.  My plans were often more complicated than they should have been, I made assumptions based on my son at home rather than what a large pack of boys could get done, lol, and it usually took longer than expected with 13 boys, including a couple of ADHD kids who were sweet, but needed more one on one attention to do anything.   

Back on the topic….

There are also members who sincerely believe the Church needs to do much better than it does now, some for good reason.

I am of the position that the Church has done pretty well since the early 90’s as an institution, learning from mistakes, but of course there is always room for improvement.  What concerns me most at this point is that the procedures the Church central leadership has put into place need a way to be sure they are followed at the local level as there is required training, but I hear some stories that while the training is completed, that is as far as it goes in some wards.  It is not really integrated as it should be in day to day operations.  

Also I know of complaints about concerning behaviour, including by known sex offenders being dismissed by local leadership when they should have been taken seriously.  There is a current very tragic case in the news due to leaders believing the abuser was harmless even in the face of several significant complaints as they saw the behaviour as just social awkwardness.  While I love the trusting nature of our faith community, we still need to have active protections in place and leaders who take complaints and even vague concerns seriously (the last as in keeping a very close eye on the situation, not forbidding anyone from attending because someone gets concerns but has no solid evidence of misbehavior).  

In my previous ward, a mentally disabled man who had learned very inappropriate behaviour in a group home was required to be escorted when he was at church after a groping incident with a young lady.  He had been going to that ward all of his life and it was a huge part of his emotional support system, so they didn’t have him go to another ward as well.  That was hard for the young woman’s family to understand, they hadn’t been in the ward that long and weren’t familiar with the man’s family or him.  He was a young child mentally and emotionally and didn’t have a clue that what he did was wrong.  He was in a wheelchair, so being escorted was a very easy fix to prevent future incidents with him.  If he had not been disabled, I would hope my leaders would have banned him from attending.  It is not a fun or even interesting calling in most cases, in fact probably it’s a spiritually draining calling to be an escort for a sex offender, not something you would want to do on the Sabbath, but that shouldn’t mean leaders are reluctant to require it.  Maybe do a rotation for a month.

Edited June 10, 2023 by Calm

[Dario_M]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

 

In my previous ward, a mentally disabled man who had learned very inappropriate behaviour in a group home was required to be escorted when he was at church after a groping incident with a young lady.  He had been going to that ward all of his life and it was a huge part of his emotional support system, so they didn’t have him go to another ward as well.  That was hard for the young woman’s family to understand, they hadn’t been in the ward that long and weren’t familiar with the man’s family or him.  He was a young child mentally and emotionally and didn’t have a clue that what he did was wrong.  He was in a wheelchair, so being escorted was a very easy fix to prevent future incidents with him.  If he had not been disabled, I would hope my leaders would have banned him from attending.  It is not a fun or even interesting calling in most cases, in fact probably it’s a spiritually draining calling to be an escort for a sex offender, not something you would want to do on the Sabbath, but that shouldn’t mean leaders are reluctant to require it.  Maybe do a rotation for a month.

 

No way!!! 🤭 Is the guy still allowed in the church after that have happend? Was it really horible what he did?.

You don expect that kind of behavoir in the LDS church tough. In my ward it never have happend so far. ✝️

Edited June 11, 2023 by Dario_M

[Diamondhands69]

4 hours ago, Dario_M said:

 

You don expect that kind of behavoir in the LDS church tough. In my ward it never have happend so far. ✝️

Just curious, what church is that kind of behavior “expected” in? 

[MustardSeed]

2 hours ago, Diamondhands69 said:

Just curious, what church is that kind of behavior “expected” in? 

You have put the emPhasis on the wrong sylAble. 

[Calm]

11 hours ago, Dario_M said:

 

No way!!! 🤭 Is the guy still allowed in the church after that have happend? Was it really horible what he did?.

You don expect that kind of behavoir in the LDS church tough. In my ward it never have happend so far. ✝️

Yes, he was still allowed, but only with supervision.  He was not generally dangerous or inappropriate.  Adult men were always with him after that incident and prevented him from being too close to any youth.  The older youth were taught about his situation and the need to be careful around him.  He was overall pretty weak, if you knew to be aware of his hands, it would be easy enough to push off any that got too close.  This only happened once in the 13 years I knew him….as far as I am aware.  It may be possible a victim did not tell if it happened, of course, too embarrassed or not wanting to get him in trouble.

He was sitting next to the young lady in the foyer before the meeting and reached out and grabbed her breast.  He had no awareness really that what he was doing was wrong.  He was just doing what he saw done in his group home.  Unfortunately such behaviour is very common in institutions and group homes among the most vulnerable.  He himself had likely experienced some abuse without realizing it was wrong due to his intellectual disability (his mental and emotional capacity was probably less than a 6 year old, I believe).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7921934/

Quote

 Subgroup analyses revealed that prevalence of sexual abuse was higher in institutionalized individuals. The most prevalent profile of abuser is of a peer with intellectual disability. Prevalence increases from mild to severe levels of intellectual disability and decreases in profound levels. It is also more prevalent when the informant is the individual with intellectual disability than when someone else reports abuse. In sum, one in three adults with intellectual disability suffers sexual abuse in adulthood.

It has been 20 years since we lived there, his parents have likely died as they were elderly and had health issues themselves.  He himself may have passed as well or gotten to the point where he was not able to attend church or his disorders may have been stable enough that he is still there, probably in his 50s at least, I did see some deterioration in him during the 13 years that I knew him, but not much.

Inappropriate sexual behavior is an issue that everyone needs to be aware of with those who are significantly intellectually disabled, especially if they are institutionalized.  There may be nothing malicious about it, just a repetition of behaviour they have seen that they do not realize is wrong, or they just assume it was pleasurable for them so it is okay for others.  They just may not understand what boundaries are and may not be capable of that understanding.  Not their fault.  Those who care for them need to take over making sure there are boundaries in place along with all the other requirements they need.

He was a very sweet man, delighted in the smallest attention and he treasured his ward family.  My biggest frustration with him was the difficulty to understand him, his speech wasn’t the clearest and I didn’t engage enough with him to pick it up as I had callings on Sunday that kept me occupied until after he was picked up to go back to the group home.  I would not have hesitated caring for him myself in my home once my children were old enough to understand his issues and how to protect themselves.  His physical limitations were pretty significant, not much strength overall, taller but not much muscle, quite slim.

[Tacenda]

I recently listened to a little bit of a podcast about background checks being done on anyone that works with children or youth in the UK. I don't understand why the church is so afraid of not having primary & youth teachers/leaders not have them in the US. 

[LoudmouthMormon]

I appreciate this information.  Abuse hides in shadows, reproduces when ignored, gets defended when people are ignorant.  The more we know, the more we talk openly about it, the less defensive we get about protecting our various interests, the better.  

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I recently listened to a little bit of a podcast about background checks being done on anyone that works with children or youth in the UK. I don't understand why the church is so afraid of not having primary & youth teachers/leaders not have them in the US. 

It is likely not fear, but the hassle and cost involved considering not only the number of callings,  but the high turnover.  It is unlikely to prevent the majority of the abuse as well (I just read one stat that said less than 10% of child abusers will ever interact with law enforcement, let alone be required to register etc, so it might give a false sense of security and we sure don’t need more of that.

This has some info on it I wasn’t aware of in regards to what records are available, how long nonconviction records are available, etc.  see section under background check limitations and federal and state laws

https://churchexecutive.com/archives/child-sexual-abuse-and-background-checks

I do expect eventually the Church will adopt something along those lines.  I am hoping better laws where pleading down doesn’t mean no registration and effective national registries/databases get created that are publicly available without a fee where needed.

Edited June 12, 2023 by Calm

[webbles]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I recently listened to a little bit of a podcast about background checks being done on anyone that works with children or youth in the UK. I don't understand why the church is so afraid of not having primary & youth teachers/leaders not have them in the US. 

The author of the piece has another piece that gives some interesting thoughts about background checks.  https://publicsquaremag.org/sexuality-family/sexual-abuse/better-protecting-children-of-all-faiths/

Quote

Don’t these churches do some kind of background check? 

It’s actually very simple: A background check is not a list of every bad thing a person has ever done. It’s a list of crimes they have been convicted of. As such, background checks are a net made mostly of holes big enough to drive a bus through. In order for abuse to show up on a background check, the victim (or their family) would have to report the crime to the police, and the abuser would have to be found guilty. But because of the nature of sexual abuse, most victims don’t report it. 

In fact, the national think tank Child USA has research showing that the average age for first disclosure of sexual abuse is 51 years old—long after the statute of limitations has run out.  If the crime can’t be reported because the statute of limitations has run out, there is no way for the crime to be reported or prosecuted as a criminal act. Occasionally, victims have luck suing in civil court despite this limitation, but civil judgments are not criminal judgments and don’t show up on the average background check. I know of one pastor in Arizona whose 5 victims took him to civil court and won—but that pastor could still produce a clean background check if asked because there was no legal record that he had committed any crime.  

Background checks are not a sure way of preventing sexual abuse.  I, personally, don't have a problem with the church implementing it.  But the church must do more and it is possible that the "more" (whatever it is) will turn out to be better than background checks.

Also, the church would have to do background checks on every single member since everyone can get pulled in as a temporary substitute.  So, focusing on just doing background checks for primary & youth teachers/leaders is not enough, either.

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

It is likely not fear, but the hassle and cost involved considering not only the number of callings,  but the high turnover.  It is unlikely to prevent the majority of the abuse as well (I just read one stat that said less than 10% of child abusers will ever interact with law enforcement, let alone be required to register etc, so it might give a false sense of security and we sure don’t need more of that.

This has some info on it I wasn’t aware of in regards to what records are available, how long nonconviction records are available, etc.  see section under background check limitations and federal and state laws

https://churchexecutive.com/archives/child-sexual-abuse-and-background-checks

I do expect eventually the Church will adopt something along those lines.  I am hoping better laws where pleading down doesn’t mean no registration and effective national registries/databases get created that are publicly available without a fee where needed.

 

54 minutes ago, webbles said:

The author of the piece has another piece that gives some interesting thoughts about background checks.  https://publicsquaremag.org/sexuality-family/sexual-abuse/better-protecting-children-of-all-faiths/

Background checks are not a sure way of preventing sexual abuse.  I, personally, don't have a problem with the church implementing it.  But the church must do more and it is possible that the "more" (whatever it is) will turn out to be better than background checks.

Also, the church would have to do background checks on every single member since everyone can get pulled in as a temporary substitute.  So, focusing on just doing background checks for primary & youth teachers/leaders is not enough, either.

I'm fairly certain there is the danger of members not accepting callings if they have to do a background check. Many members might think it's similar to government overreach, or there might be privacy issues. So I get it, and hopefully you're right that the church does need to do something, and even something better if possible.

Edited June 12, 2023 by Tacenda

[JustAnAustralian]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I'm fairly certain there is the danger of members not accepting callings if they have to do a background check.

Working with children checks have been mandatory for callings that work with youth over here for a while now and I haven't seen that happening (yet). I have seen cases of people not get the check as an excuse to get them out of being called into Primary etc, but no push-back on the process itself (it probably helps that it's a legal requirement).

2 hours ago, webbles said:

Also, the church would have to do background checks on every single member since everyone can get pulled in as a temporary substitute.

One thing that got pointed out to us in recentish training on this, is that any of these kind of checks come with privacy considerations. If there is a specific law that requires it, the church only needs to maintain what is essentially a "yes this person can legally work with children" record, that only needs to be kept for members with youth related callings.

As soon as there is any form of wide scale police history check, with actual record collection, and making decisions based on records, then they need to start collecting and storing (long term) a whole lot more information, and then how often would the checks be re-done and record updated?

As an example:

There was a legal case in Australia recently relating to historical sexual abuse in a scouting organisation.

• The organisation had accepted that it occurred
• The abuser had admitted to it (and was already in prison for charges against the same person)

The organisation was sued for putting the abuser in a position where he could do so. The abuser had said the organisation could have done more in preventing him from being able to do it, given they knew he had done it previously elsewhere. 

However... the staff member who had put the abuser in that position had since died, and there were no records of any deliberations or considerations etc. The court decided that the scouting organisation wouldn't have been able to have a fair trial (since it couldn't be determined what was known or considered), and it ended up with a permanent stay.

 

How would a similar situation play out in a church setting where a deceased (or otherwise unavailable) Bishop had made the decision based on a locally obtained copy of a police check rather than using a government issued "this person is allowed to work with children" verification?

 

 

Edited June 12, 2023 by JustAnAustralian

[Calm]

5 hours ago, webbles said:

Also, the church would have to do background checks on every single member since everyone can get pulled in as a temporary substitute. 

That would likely have to change and instead subs be drawn from a list of checked out individuals. 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

 

I'm fairly certain there is the danger of members not accepting callings if they have to do a background check. Many members might think it's similar to government overreach, or there might be privacy issues. 

I hadn’t thought of that.  Good point as I think you are right as far as the US is concerned. The only thing that might prevent that is if it’s already required for school volunteering, so people have already accepted it. 

I personally don’t think background checks are worth it at this point. If the laws change to make them more effective, I will likely change my mind. I am assuming that the laws will be changed, but who knows. 
 

“a government issued "this person is allowed to work with children" verification?”

I think with the widening requirements that it makes sense to have a government collect the info, create a national database and then issue a verification, something that could be easily updated. Much more intelligent than having private organizations having to track member’s’ criminal records, etc. 

Edited June 12, 2023 by Calm

[Dario_M]

21 hours ago, Diamondhands69 said:

Just curious, what church is that kind of behavior “expected” in? 

No single church offcourse. ✝️

[Dario_M]

14 hours ago, Calm said:

Yes, he was still allowed, but only with supervision.  He was not generally dangerous or inappropriate.  Adult men were always with him after that incident and prevented him from being too close to any youth.  The older youth were taught about his situation and the need to be careful around him.  He was overall pretty weak, if you knew to be aware of his hands, it would be easy enough to push off any that got too close.  This only happened once in the 13 years I knew him….as far as I am aware.  It may be possible a victim did not tell if it happened, of course, too embarrassed or not wanting to get him in trouble.

 

Well...at least, good that he still got accepted by the church.

14 hours ago, Calm said:

He was sitting next to the young lady in the foyer before the meeting and reached out and grabbed her breast.  He had no awareness really that what he was doing was wrong.  He was just doing what he saw done in his group home.  Unfortunately such behaviour is very common in institutions and group homes among the most vulnerable.  He himself had likely experienced some abuse without realizing it was wrong due to his intellectual disability (his mental and emotional capacity was probably less than a 6 year old, I believe).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7921934/

It has been 20 years since we lived there, his parents have likely died as they were elderly and had health issues themselves.  He himself may have passed as well or gotten to the point where he was not able to attend church or his disorders may have been stable enough that he is still there, probably in his 50s at least, I did see some deterioration in him during the 13 years that I knew him, but not much.

Inappropriate sexual behavior is an issue that everyone needs to be aware of with those who are significantly intellectually disabled, especially if they are institutionalized.  There may be nothing malicious about it, just a repetition of behaviour they have seen that they do not realize is wrong, or they just assume it was pleasurable for them so it is okay for others.  They just may not understand what boundaries are and may not be capable of that understanding.  Not their fault.  Those who care for them need to take over making sure there are boundaries in place along with all the other requirements they need.

He was a very sweet man, delighted in the smallest attention and he treasured his ward family.  My biggest frustration with him was the difficulty to understand him, his speech wasn’t the clearest and I didn’t engage enough with him to pick it up as I had callings on Sunday that kept me occupied until after he was picked up to go back to the group home.  I would not have hesitated caring for him myself in my home once my children were old enough to understand his issues and how to protect themselves.  His physical limitations were pretty significant, not much strength overall, taller but not much muscle, quite slim.

Yeah understand that completaly. I hope he's stil okay. 

Edited June 12, 2023 by Dario_M

[JustAnAustralian]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

Much more intelligent than having private organizations having to track member’s’ criminal records, etc. 

It can be difficult, especially if the person has lived overseas (think of international serving missionaries). There are some missions that cover multiple countries (e.g. Adriatic North Mission), good luck trying to chase all of that up at the ward level.

Edited June 12, 2023 by JustAnAustralian

[ksfisher]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

I think with the widening requirements that it makes sense to have a government collect the info, create a national database and then issue a verification, something that could be easily updated.

This almost sounds like a person would need government approval before being called to be the primary pianist. 

[webbles]

11 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

One thing that got pointed out to us in recentish training on this, is that any of these kind of checks come with privacy considerations. If there is a specific law that requires it, the church only needs to maintain what is essentially a "yes this person can legally work with children" record, that only needs to be kept for members with youth related callings.

As soon as there is any form of wide scale police history check, with actual record collection, and making decisions based on records, then they need to start collecting and storing (long term) a whole lot more information, and then how often would the checks be re-done and record updated?

As an example:

There was a legal case in Australia recently relating to historical sexual abuse in a scouting organisation.

• The organisation had accepted that it occurred
• The abuser had admitted to it (and was already in prison for charges against the same person)

The organisation was sued for putting the abuser in a position where he could do so. The abuser had said the organisation could have done more in preventing him from being able to do it, given they knew he had done it previously elsewhere. 

However... the staff member who had put the abuser in that position had since died, and there were no records of any deliberations or considerations etc. The court decided that the scouting organisation wouldn't have been able to have a fair trial (since it couldn't be determined what was known or considered), and it ended up with a permanent stay.

 

How would a similar situation play out in a church setting where a deceased (or otherwise unavailable) Bishop had made the decision based on a locally obtained copy of a police check rather than using a government issued "this person is allowed to work with children" verification?

I worry about a creating laws to enforce background checks for working with kids.  One of the issue I have with background checks is they don't really appear to help with child abuse cases.  How many of the cases that are publicized would have been caught by a background check?  For instance, the case you refer to in Australia doesn't appear to be helped by any sort of background check or even a government issued thing.  It doesn't seem like the stuff was ever brought before the law.  So the government would have never known about him.

I worry the legislature will pass a law requiring these checks and then pat themselves on the back for "fixing" child abuse.  To really work, the background checks just can't do criminal checks.  They would also need to look at any allegations that have been made, any private notations that have been made, etc.  And, at least in the US, I highly doubt that would pass a constitutional challenge.

After reading that article about some things the church has done well, I think the church should work on improving its record notation.  For a new member, the church could do a background check as part of the member interview.  This would at least find any obvious criminal issues and if there are some related to children, the new member would have it annotated.  Anytime an allegation is made, it should be annotated as well.  Any member can bring a news article to the Bishop that has allegations in case the possible abuse occurred outside of the church.  Yes, this does mean that a single allegation could prevent a member from ever working with children or the youth but I feel like that is acceptable.  The member would still be able to have callings in other areas.  An excommunication and rebaptize should not clear out those annotations.  The annotation should be dated so we know when it was added.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

This almost sounds like a person would need government approval before being called to be the primary pianist. 

It is the way it is heading with laws requiring anyone working with children to have background checks.  It is similar imo to the Stranger Danger emphasis in past years where tons of money and effort was put into promotions for teaching your kids to avoid strangers and getting them finger or foot printed in case of kidnapping…a very rare occurrence (though it happened to my boss’ six year old daughter and there were a couple of attempts out at University Mall in Orem when I was pregnant with my first, so I think fingerprinting kids and having current pictures and info available for law enforcement if needed is not a bad idea)l. Background checks laws are picking one of the lower hanging fruits of child abuse—those who have criminal records—to address…understandable given the passion behind protecting our children drives us to need to do something, but in both of these cases you will only cover a small percentage of cases.  We will make bigger strides protecting children when we figure out more effective ways to deal with abuse in families and by friends, including peers (1/3 of sexual assaults on children are done by other juveniles).