|
Are the
Protecting God’s Children Principles Practical in the Real
World? Sharon Womack Doty, J.D., M.H.R.
One of the
principal standards of the VIRTUS® and Protecting God’s
Children® program is the “continuous improvement model”
of program development. Through this model, the VIRTUS research team
regularly and frequently reviews new research for data that will
enhance, expand, or even adjust the existing program materials.
As the first adult
prevention program of its kind, Protecting God’s Children
promotes a unique five-step process for adults to prevent child
sexual abuse. Research on the validity of this approach and the value
of the process can only be accomplished over a substantial period of
time. However, independent research on these issues can help verify
the soundness of the Protecting God’s Children approach.
Recently, a major
study was commissioned by the United States Department of Education
(DOE) as part of the “no child left behind” legislation.
The purpose of the study (Shakeshaft) was to examine sexual abuse in
schools in the United States using existing research. The study
synthesized existing research literature to answer questions about
the prevalence of educator sexual misconduct, characteristics of
offenders, and the children and young people who are special targets.
The study also describes recommendations for prevention efforts that
deal with educator sexual conduct.
Although there
were no federally funded reports that contain questions that would
enable analysis of educator sexual misconduct, the results of the
study provide us with insights into the people who abuse and the
grooming process they use. In this training bulletin, we examine the
grooming process and warning signs described in the Protecting
God’s Children program—details that were developed through
a variety of research avenues, interviews with perpetrators and
victims, and through a root cause analysis of approximately 400 cases
of sexual misconduct with children. We will compare these findings
and program components with the conclusions reached on these same
issues in the recent DOE study. Then, in next month’s training
bulletin, we will examine what the DOE study has to say about some of
the myths that the Protecting God’s Children program attempts to dispel.
The Grooming Process
The Protecting
God’s Children program
According to the
Protecting God’s Children program, the grooming process has
three basic elements. These elements are both separate and interrelated.
• Physical
grooming—This can begin with a simple pat on the back, but over
time becomes more intimate.
•
Psychological grooming—Psychological grooming takes many forms,
all of which are designed to drive a wedge between the child and the
parent or guardian and to pull the child under the control of the
perpetrator. Psychological techniques include a wide variety of
activities from telling a child that the sexual contact is “an
act of love sanctioned by God” to threatening harm to someone
the child loves if he or she tells anyone about the abuse.
• Community
grooming—While the physical and psychological grooming are
progressing with the child, the perpetrator is grooming the parents,
guardians, and the rest of the community. The purpose is to convince
us that this is someone who really cares about kids and is committed
to their well-being so that we will not notice the warning signs or
will disregard them because we can’t believe the perpetrator
would commit such a crime.
The grooming
process can take as little as a few days or as long as a few months,
but the perpetrator is willing to be patient in an effort to gain the
trust of everyone involved. This is how child molesters avoid being caught.
The Department of
Education Study
The study of
educator sexual misconduct found that “sex abusers in schools
use various strategies to trap students.”In addition to being
among the most trusted and honored educators in the system—the
ones with the most awards for excellence—educators who commit
sexual abuse also groom children.
• “They
lie to (children or young people), isolate them, make them feel
complicit, and manipulate them into sexual contact&ldots; the process
of grooming, where an abuser selects a student, gives the student
attention and rewards, and provides the student with support and
understanding, all the while slowly increasing the amount of touch or
other sexual behavior. The purpose of grooming is to test the
child’s ability to maintain secrecy, to desensitize the child
through progressive sexual behaviors, to provide the child with
experiences that are valuable and that the child won’t want to
lose, to learn information that will discredit the child, and to gain
approval from the parents.”
Other aspects of
the grooming process used by educators who sexually molest students
leave the students believing that they are responsible for their own
abuse because they did not stop the perpetrator. The study also
indicates that grooming is one of the ways that a perpetrator
“test(s) a child’s compliance.” If the child complains
or reports anything that feels uncomfortable or seems inappropriate,
the educator has complete deniability because nothing has really
happened &ldots; yet!
Warning Signs of a
Possible Child Molester
The Protecting
God’s Children program
The Protecting
God’s Children program identifies a number of warning signs of a
potential child molester:
1 Always wants to
be alone with children in areas where no one can monitor the interaction.
2 Allows children
to do things their parents would not permit.
3 Thinks the
“rules” don’t apply to him or her.
4 Is always more
excited to be with children than with adults.
5 Discourages
others from participating in activities involving kids.
6 Goes overboard
in physical touching.
7 Uses sexual
language, tells sexual jokes, and shows pornography to children.
8 Gives gifts
without permission and demands secrecy about those gifts.
The Department of
Education study
Many of the same
child molester warning signs were identified in the Department of
Education study:
1 Isolating
students from others.
2 Gifts and other
positive things are given.
3 Traps children
or young people in areas or situations that can’t be monitored.
4 Goes overboard
touching children.
5 Targets
vulnerable or marginal students who are hungry for attention.
One interesting
aspect of the information gathered by the DOE (Shakeshaft) study is
that educators who molest children younger than seventh grade
“have different patterns than those who abuse older
children.” Those who target younger children are among the most
professional and the most distinguished teachers. They often display
plaques indicating that they are “Teacher of the Year,” or
some other designation as an outstanding teacher.
Occurrences that
involve older students seem to be more spontaneous and less planned.
These situations seem to be a result of bad judgment or a misguided
“sense of privilege.”
Conclusion
None of the
research on educator sexual misconduct answers all of the questions
adults have about this issue. However, the existing research studies
do confirm the validity of the grooming process and many of the
warning signs identified by the VIRTUS team in the development of the
Protecting God’s Children program. Next month, in Part 2 of this
series, we will examine some of the widely held myths that are
challenged in the Protecting God’s Children program.
Continuous
improvement is the goal of all the VIRTUS programs. Review of new
research is an opportunity for continued development and refinement
of the awareness and training material provided through the VIRTUS programs. |
