Study Finds ‘Glaring Gaps’ In Abuse Prevention
First-of-its-kind study finds that Jewish schools and camps lack best practices when it comes to combating child sexual abuse.
A new study, the first of its
kind in the Jewish community to chart how prepared schools and camps are
to prevent child sexual abuse, reveals that protections are not
uniformly understood or implemented.
The study
— conducted by Jumpstart, a Los Angeles-based nonprofit that funds and
supports Jewish innovation, and being reported on here for the first
time — found that only 58 percent of the 68 Jewish day schools surveyed
reported having a written policy to deal with child sexual abuse.
While 95 percent of the 90 Jewish overnight
camps surveyed had a written policy to deal with child sexual abuse, the
detail, breadth and application of those policies remained lacking,
according to project director and CEO of Jumpstart, Joshua Avedon. (Two
hundred Jewish overnight camps and 140 Jewish day schools were contacted
for the study.)
Jumpstart CEO Joshua Avedon
“The most important finding is that there’s a
lack of understanding about what best practices are to create a safety
framework,” said Avedon. “Even organizations that are attempting to do
this work and putting into place some measures and controls don’t fully
understand what needs to get done.”
The study, conducted by sociologist Steven M. Cohen and abuse expert Shira Berkovits
in consultation with the Foundation for Jewish Camp (FJC) and the
RAVSAK network of community Jewish day schools, found that despite broad
adoption of written child sexual abuse policies, the content of those
policies are not always consistent with best practices. For example,
only 26 percent of day schools indicated they had a policy in place that
prohibited staff from being alone with a child unless visible to
others.
In addition, a substantial number of both
camps and schools did not prohibit typical “grooming” behaviors — a set
of seemingly innocent behaviors that a child abuser might use to gain
the trust of a child — such as giving gifts to an individual child,
contacting a child for non-camp/school related issues and transporting a
child alone in a vehicle.
“[Organizations] can have a heightened level
of confidence, which may not actually be warranted by what their actions
are,” said Avedon. “They didn’t know what they didn’t know.”
One particularly glaring example: Though 100
percent of camps and 95 percent of schools reported “always” or
“usually” screening adult hires who will come in contact with minors, 12
percent of camps and 22 percent of schools do not or are not sure if
they perform screenings for volunteers.
“A predator looking for an opportunity to abuse a child would seek the easiest point of entry,” said Avedon.
“A predator looking for an opportunity to
abuse a child would seek the easiest point of entry,” said Avedon. “A
volunteer position provides exactly that — access to children but limits
on anti-abuse safeguards.”
Currently, all 50 states require that
professionals working with children report reasonable suspicions of
abuse to a government child protection agency. In 18 states (including
New Jersey, though not New York), any adult with reasonable suspicion is
legally required to report it. Still, 15 percent of camp directors and
10 percent of school directors did not or were unsure about whether they
understood these laws. Camp response procedures tended to emphasize
reporting internally within the organization, rather than externally to
authorities, leading to “inadvertent cover-ups,” said Avedon.
“There is sometimes a gap between what [staff]
think they’re supposed to be doing and what actually is the law,” he
said, regarding the tendency to report internally. “Good-intentioned
people can actually aid the quashing of an investigation.” While
institutions are tempted to “wait until they have proof,” that means
“waiting until a child is abused.”
While institutions are tempted to “wait until they have proof,” that means “waiting until a child is abused.”
Cohen, research professor of Jewish social
policy at Hebrew Union College, said that while “everyone wants to
protect the children under their care,” limited familiarity with the
specifics of how to achieve that objective leads to a “glaring gap
between commitment and performance.”
Indeed, the study found that Jewish camps and
day schools report greater levels of preparedness in handling child
sexual abuse than their current policies indicate is warranted. While 95
percent of Jewish overnight camps and 90 percent of Jewish day schools
believe that they are greatly or somewhat prepared to deal with child
sexual abuse, 13 percent of camps and nearly 30 percent of schools
scored poorly in adherence to best practices of prevention, detection
and response.
While most respondents indicated that their
organization provide some training to staff on how to identify, prevent
and respond to child sexual abuse, only 17 percent of schools and 57
percent of camps felt their staff was trained to a “great extent.”
Nearly 40 percent of respondents indicated that their organizations did not provide any education to children about what was considered inappropriate touching or behaviors by adults.
Nearly 40 percent of respondents indicated that their organizations did not provide any education to children about what was considered inappropriate touching or behaviors by adults.
“I think it’s pretty clear that the Jewish
world is lagging behind,” said Avedon, citing groups in the Christian
world like GRACE (Godly Response to Abuse In Christian Environments), a
Lynchburg, Va.-based nonprofit founded in 2003 to assist evangelical
groups confront child sexual abuse. “We’re not at a level of communal
discussion, response and resource provision that indicates this issue is
being taken seriously.”
“I think it’s pretty clear that the Jewish world is lagging behind,” said Avedon.
Jeremy Fingerman, the CEO of the Foundation
for Jewish Camp, an umbrella organization that supports 160 Jewish
overnight camps, said that hard data is “how to build real support.”
“We salute this effort to make camps more
safe,” said Fingerman, who helped circulate the survey among
FJC-affiliated camps. “Now that we have data, camps can begin to design
training programs.”
He compared the Jumpstart study to a 2012-13
study conducted by FJC which found that children with disabilities are
significantly underserved by Jewish camps. The data drove an inclusion
initiative that enabled more disabled campers to attend Jewish camps.
Fingerman said that the Jumpstart study’s
finding that Jewish overnight camps are more confident about their child
sexual abuse policies than is seemingly warranted did not concern him.
“The study is intended to raise awareness and
enforce best practices,” he said. “The high response rate from the camps
surveyed show they are prepared to do the work.”
“We’re not at a level of communal discussion, response and resource provision that indicates this issue is being taken seriously.”
The one thing that does influence every Jewish
organization: the funders. “That’s the great equalizer,” said Avedon.
Last year, Jumpstart pioneered a Funders Pledge strategy
that commits at least a dozen influential philanthropists — including
Lynn Schusterman of the Schusterman Family Foundation, Jay Ruderman of
the Ruderman Family Foundation and Felicia Herman, executive director of
the Natan Fund — to support only those Jewish schools, camps and other
groups working with children that take specific steps to “prevent,
report and investigate sexual abuse of minors.” Today, the pledge has 18
signatories.
Though some results of the survey were
“disturbing” for Avedon — particularly that 40 percent of the day
schools surveyed had no policy on child sexual abuse whatsoever — he
believes the Jewish community is approaching a “tipping point” about
this issue.
“There is a sense that the Jewish community is finally ready to grapple with this problem,” he said.