WHILE Australian churches have made progress in implementing the safeguarding recommendations of the 2013-17 Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, this is not always translating to the local level, a study has found.
Cultural resistance and a perception that safeguarding is an unnecessary external regulation are hampering efforts to integrate safeguarding practices, the researchers at the Australian Catholic University also found.
For the study, Just Tick the Box and Move On: Australian Christian religious leaders reflect on safeguarding practices in their settings, 20 self-selected Australian Christian leaders — one third Roman Catholic, one third Anglican, and the remainder from smaller denominations — were interviewed. The results are published in the international journal Child Abuse and Neglect.
Participants reported that local religious leaders and volunteers were sometimes resistant and aggressive, needing to be constantly reminded of the importance of safeguarding. Gendered power dynamics, a reliance on compliance-focused approaches, and resource constraints were also identified as impeding progress. Deeply held theological or doctrinal beliefs and hierarchical leadership structures also impeded change, the researchers found.
While gender was not explicitly discussed by participants, it was regarded as an important factor, because, while child sexual abuse was predominantly perpetrated by men, the findings suggested that women were disproportionately responsible for safeguarding in churches. In the study, which involved 11 women and nine men, women were overrepresented, despite accounting for only about 22 per cent of senior leadership positions in Australian churches.
Women in the study said that their position was as advocates, or “salespeople”, for safeguarding, having to focus on safeguarding as a way to protect the institution and its leaders rather than the intrinsic value of protecting children. They had to “strategically position safeguarding to align with male priorities”. Although this could lead to short-term compliance, it could contribute to the idea that safeguarding amounted to external regulation and unnecessary administrative work.
The authors say that their findings “highlight several key opportunities for strengthening safeguarding efforts, particularly in Australian religious organisations”. A critical area for improvement, they write, is “the widespread adoption of holistic and contextual prevention strategies which would lead to enhanced and streamlined approaches”.
Current strategies, they say, are aimed at identifying individual adult perpetrators and responding to abuse after it has occurred. Contextual approaches would require churches to “assess and modify the physical, cultural, and relational environments” to minimise risk and promote safety. The study recommends participatory approaches, such as involving child and survivor panels, to “enhance safeguarding policy and practice by aligning initiatives with lived experience”.
Participants said that religious organisations could play a more active part in providing education, support, and resources to families to prevent abuse not just in religious organisations, but also in families and the community. They identified family dynamics that “perpetuate rigid gender roles, punitive discipline, or secrecy around sexuality” and could increase the risk of abuse in the home. These dynamics could be reshaped through church teachings promoting open communication, respect for boundaries, and non-violent parenting strategies. “Equipping families with education, support, and resources can strengthen protective factors and broaden the impact of safeguarding efforts”, the study says.
It concludes that “moving beyond an individual-focused approach would allow religious organisations to capitalise on their strengths as community-centered organisations, creating safer environments that reflect both theological values and best practices in harm prevention. Collaboration between denominations and jurisdictions would also allow for more streamlined practices and facilitate broader community prevention efforts.
“By framing safeguarding as central to their mission and role, religious organisations can cultivate a culture that prioritises safety and the needs of children, families, and victim-survivors.”
