Preventing Sexual Abuse: Beyond Mandated Reporting
Tuesday, January 24, 2012 at 1:56PM Robin Stein, Director of Response
Eric Crabtree-Nelson, Assistant Director of Response
The words come screaming across the news crawl at the bottom of the screen, “Paterno out at Penn State”. For anyone who is interested in college football, this is a shock. What could possibly have caused this? Joe Paterno, a fixture as the coach of the Penn State Nittany Lions, holder of 409 career victories, forced out of coaching. More news comes out; Paterno supposedly knew about an assistant coach who was allegedly seen molesting a boy in the Penn State Athletic Complex, and simply told his superiors. As news organizations continue to dig, it becomes clear that there was a cover-up of epic proportions at Penn State.
This story feels eerily similar to other cover-ups of sexual abuse. Those who are in positions of power focusing on the needs of the abuser, or the needs of the organization, rather than the needs of the survivors, or the needs of the innocent. Leaving countless other children to be victimized because…….
Why exactly? What keeps individuals from reporting cases of abuse? Especially, clear-cut incidents? What about incidents that were witnessed by others?
As so many people and communities are reeling in the wake of the ongoing revelations coming out related to the Penn State sexual abuse charges, Response (an adolescent program of JCFS) stands poised for action and commentary. But where to begin? The issue of child sexual abuse is certainly not a new one to this organization. Indeed JCFS has been working to educate the public and our communities, treat its victims and survivors and advocate for policies and protocols that would close some of the loopholes open to potential predators in schools, camps, synagogues and other arenas for many years.
In Illinois, as in other states, we have laws related to mandated reporting; signs and symptoms to look for and what to do when you “suspect” there might be any type of child abuse occurring anywhere. And that word “suspect” is critical because it’s not up to the mandated reporter to investigate to determine the actuality of abuse, it’s simply up to those of us who fall under the legal definition of mandated reporters to inform those in the child welfare system as to our suspicions; investigations and outcome determinations are left to the experts in the field of child abuse.
While the letter of the law (specifically the Mandated Report Law) may not cover a circumstance like Penn State, our moral compasses certainly should. The mandated reporter guidelines include coaches (those working with youth in any professional capacity). Yet, because most college athletes are above the age of 18 and so, are no longer considered a minor, most of the victims fall between the cracks of our legal system. Despite this fact, the very clear element of the power dynamic evident within the context of a coach’s position to their athletes is glaringly obvious.
Let’s examine two aspects of abuse that are particularly relevant to this current situation: Betrayal and Healing.
The level of betrayal a survivor experiences is directly correlated with the level of the relationship victims may have with their perpetrators. So, the literature tells us that the concept of “stranger danger” in these incidents, while actually relatively rare, may have a better outcome for a survivor in terms of their feeling less betrayed. When a perpetrator is a loved one, family member, relative, member of the clergy or (as in this case) a beloved and revered mentor and/or coach, the immensity of the issue of betrayal, directly correlated to one’s healing process, is enormously significant and can negatively impact the healing process. Unfortunately, the boys allegedly victimized by this individual were not only betrayed by him, but by the administrators of the school as well. Nothing delegitimizes the experience more for survivors than the fact that this individual was able to continue to hold a respected position in this major college sports program and to act with impunity for years after the incidents were first reported.
Since traumatic events typically occur within the context of some type of relationship, so too does the healing process. It is a well-known and documented fact in the research literature that long term healing is best achieved when the response to victim’s disclosure is appropriate. What does that entail? When victims are believed; assured that what happened was not their fault; and when perpetrators and systems involved take swift ownership over what has happened. Quick, supportive, healing interventions are imperative to a survivor’s healing process. Clearly, that has been sorely missing in the Penn State case.