Are sexual abuse survivors best served when faith-based institutions investigate themselves?

Even though an investigation may appear independent, this is often not the case. Oftentimes, independent investigations are internal investigations in disguise. Institutions must have no control over the process, findings, or final reports for an investigation to be truly independent.

Independent investigations are not always so independent

In response to public accusations of sexual abuse, faith-based institutions often launch an “independent” investigation. Whether it’s in academia, mission organizations, or churches, the term has become almost fashionable.

When confronted with public allegations of child sexual abuse within its ranks, an organization finds itself under a bright spotlight. Unfortunately, the overriding institutional concern typically has little to do with victims. Often, the main goal is to eliminate the spotlight and protect its reputation.

Their solution? An “independent” investigation. The truth is, the motivation behind these investigations is nothing more than self-preservation.

What is the difference between independent and internal investigations

Many investigations labeled as “independent” are nothing more than internal investigations in disguise. This facade allows institutions to manipulate the investigation’s process and results. Additionally, the deceit exploits and hurts abuse survivors. They cooperate, believing they’re part of a fair process, only to discover too late that they were unwittingly involved in something designed to protect the institution.

While an internal investigation offers an avenue for self-protection, a truly independent investigation offers an institution something far more profound. It provides an opportunity for the institution to understand where it failed. Only then can it demonstrate authentic repentance to victims and make the necessary changes.

Therefore, it is critical to understand how institutions influence investigations. One should examine key areas in an investigation that institutions attempt to manipulate. Asking a few important questions can help determine if an investigation is internal or independent.

Who controls the investigator

First, consider who is in charge of selecting and managing the investigator. If the institution under investigation chooses the investigator, the process is inherently compromised. An investigator tied to the institution or with a fiduciary duty to it—like an attorney—cannot be independent. They are legally obligated to act in the institution’s best interests. This allows the institution to influence the investigation, which is a clear indication that the inquiry is internal.

An independent investigation requires the investigator to be accountable only to the truth. If the institution selects the investigation team or demands progress updates, it’s not an independent inquiry. To ensure independence, the institution under investigation cannot influence the investigator.

Who controls the process

Next, consider who sets the rules for how the investigation unfolds. In an internal investigation, the institution controls the process. Therefore, the institution decides what evidence to review, who to interview, and how to conduct the interviews.

Furthermore, the institution will often demand control over access to witnesses or try to limit the scope of the inquiry. For example, it’s not uncommon for internal investigations to focus exclusively on the actions of the perpetrator. This approach shifts blame away from the institution’s failures. Such a self-serving limitation can cover up some of the most egregious behavior related to the abuse.

In an independent investigation, the investigator is in the driver’s seat. They decide who to interview, conduct the interviews, and select the relevant evidence. The institution has no authority to control any part of the process.

Who controls the findings

In an internal investigation, the institution under investigation has complete control over the investigative findings. These findings include witness interview recordings, notes, transcripts, and more. The institutional oversight means that susceptible information the victim shares with an investigator is accessible by the very organization accused of failing them.

To make matters worse, many abuse survivors are never informed of this oversight. I recently learned of a faith-based organization that terminated the investigating agency prior to the completion of the investigation. The organization then demanded that the investigator turn over copies of all its findings. Nevertheless, it continued to label the investigation as “independent.”

Independent investigations prohibit third parties, including the institution under investigation, from accessing sensitive data. This provides significant comfort to those who participate in the investigation. They know independent investigators handle their interviews with care and keep them confidential. A legitimate independent investigation means the institution does not control or access the findings.

Who controls the final report

In an internal investigation, the investigator often works alongside the institution. They can even jointly draft and authorize the final report. In other words, the very entity under investigation can determine the content of the final report. Even worse, some institutions will try to impose authority over who can read it.

I personally know of abuse survivors who endured painstaking interviews, believing they were part of an “independent” process. Then, they were denied access to the final report. This dishonesty leaves survivors feeling further exploited and frustrated.

An independent investigation requires the investigator to draft and authorize the final report separate from any institutional input or control. The investigator alone determines the content of the final report and who will receive it. Some independent investigators will even require that the final report be posted publicly to promote transparency, accountability, and credibility. Bottom line: for an investigation to be independent, the institution must have no control over the final report.

Conclusion

The independence of an investigation is not defined by the words or assurances of the institution under investigation. It is defined by a structure that requires the institution to get out of the driver’s seat and give up control. Embracing a truly independent investigation can be a profound step forward for organizations genuinely focused on demonstrating love and repentance to sexual abuse victims.

The next time you hear an organization proudly announce the launch of an independent investigation, do a little digging and find out who’s really sitting in the driver’s seat.

If you’re a survivor of abuse seeking justice, BozLaw is here to help with professional guidance and compassionate legal support. Contact us today for a free case evaluation.

Boz Tchividjian is an attorney at BozLaw P.A. who represents sexual abuse survivors throughout the country. A version of this article was originally published for the Religion News Service (RNS). Used with permission.