THE INCIDENT

Its 2pm on a Friday afternoon. The last of the groups have just left and the staff are busy cleaning gear, and getting ready for the new groups that are due in on the following Monday. Everyone is looking forward to the weekend off to rest and recuperate. The Manager sits gazing out of his office window twiddling his pen as he allows his thoughts to drift lazily to the weekends climbing and walking on the Cuillen Ridge on Skye that he planned to do on this weekend off.

In the gear store the staff team discuss the group they had two weeks ago, a bunch of wild youngsters from the suburbs of London, their first trip north to the Lakes where they participated in a ten day whirlwind of  adventurous activities. They laughed as they recalled those youngsters who took great delight in tipping their canoe more than they canoed as the weather was hot and the dip in the lake was both soothing and a new experience for them. Then there was the day they took the group to the local disused quarry to try some climbing and abseiling and several youngsters took great delight in falling off more than they did the actual climbing and how could they forget the trip to the caves and Billy the groups designated ‘clown’ and  funny man, having had double helpings of beans for breakfast amusing everyone with his incessant wind breaking. Yes it was hard going those ten days but most enjoyable. The staff just hoped that the following weeks groups would be slightly less demanding and a little easier to manage.

The ringing of the phone startled the Manager from his day dream where he was already half way through doing the Cuillen ridge. He was even more startled by the message from the caller who introduced themselves as the Child Protection Liasion Officer from the London Borough of  Somewhere. They had to report that one of the young children who attended a previous ten day Adventure Activity Course had made an allegation about one of the male instructors and that subsequence questioning of the last group highlighted another further allegations of sexual misconduct and that an investigation would be held immediately by the local police and social work child protection unit. Once he had caught his breath, he asked who, what, when and where but all he was told was that he was not to inform the staff team but wait until the investigating officers arrived later that afternoon. In the meantime, he had to gather up all daily log books, incident sheets and staff rotas for the past two months and in addition he had to follow the Centre’s Child Protection Procedures as laid down in the local authority child protection handbook.

The Manager again asked who the allegations were against, but the caller refused to say only adding that the joint Police and Social Work Team were already on their way. He asked if they could tell him what the allegation were, when it was supposed to have taken place, and under what circumstances, but again, no reply was made other than he would have to wait. The Manager’s head was spinning, his pulse was racing, and Skye seemed a long long way off.

A thousand questions ran through his brain, all at once. Who could it be? Was it true? Who made the allegation and why? What should I do next?, What about next weeks rota? What should I say to the staff if anything? What will the management committee say when they find out and should I ring the Chairperson now? In all his twenty five years working in an outdoor activity centre he had never come across anything like this. There weren’t even any procedures in the work manual for him to follow. He felt alone and isolated, numb with shock and confused about what this would mean for the centre.

The thought of seeing the headlines in the local and possibly national newspapers: Child molester found working at outdoor activity centre in the Lakes. Charges to be brought.

Even if the allegations were not true, the publicity might ruin the centre’s image and ultimately the financial status as other groups may well cancel their bookings when the news got out. Just as he was contemplating the mess that was likely to follow, the phone rang again. It was the Area Youth Officer from Somewhere Borough saying that he was sorry but he had to cancel all future bookings from his Borough until further notice and that a memo had gone around the rest of the London Boroughs to inform them that an investigation was underway regarding allegations of sexual misconduct by one of the centre’s staff.    It had started.

It was 4pm and time for all the staff to go off duty, so he called them into his office but before he could say anything, the local authority child protection officers arrived. Too late to even prepare them now he thought as they entered reception. The two officers wanted to see him alone so he took them into the conference room where they immediately asked for all the relevant log books for the past two months which of course, he did not have as the centre only recorded activities. They then asked for Joe Blogg’s personnel file and shifts for the past two months. So there he had it, it was Joe who the allegations had been made against. But he was married and had two children of his own so what would all this mean for them? By this time the staff team knew something was amiss and were bewildered and curious as to what was going on. The Manager felt saddened and guilty that he could do nothing to allay their fears as they sat in his office trying to fathom out what was going on.

The lead interviewing officer was firm and to the point. The complaints were made by several  young girls from Somewhere Borough regarding Joe Bloggs (a fictitious name and my apologies to anyone called Joe Bloggs). On being asked what the complaints actually were, the interviewing officer said that he could not state exactly just yet as it might prejudice the investigation by putting the alleged perpetrator on their guard to come up with an excuse but he would make it clear when interviewing Joe Bloggs during which time he could have someone sit in to act as a validator.

What happens now, he asked himself, what do I tell the staff team whilst Joe was being interviewed, should I tell them the truth, should I ask them if they know anything or even saw anything which could end up as a complaint? Before he could come up with answers he was told that the procedures had to be followed to the letter without any deviation. This meant saying nothing to anyone until everyone had been interviewed separately and of course, after Joe had been interviewed, he would have to be suspended immediately.

By now the Manager was beside himself. Never mind next weeks rota, how should he tell Joe Bloggs that he had to be suspended whilst an investigation took place which may or may not involve interviewing all the young people he had ever worked with since he started three years ago. What of his wife and children? What  would they feel like when they were told. This was indeed a nightmare gone wrong and was not helped by requests to have all relevant paper work, daily logs, activity sheets and the incident book, which of course the centre did not have.

He trudged into the office and asked for Joe to accompany him to the conference room. The walk along the corridor was an eternity for the Manager as was the endless questions Joe was asking which he was unable to give any reply. He felt somehow betraying Joe as he had known him for seven years and he felt that they had a good relationship. He also felt guilty at ignoring the staff’s requests to be told what was going on as all he could tell them was that they could not leave until told to by the visitors. At this point, he knew Skye just did not exist and would not play any part in his forthcoming weekends break.

Joe Bloggs sat in stony silence, face ashen white as he was told what was happening. He asked the Manager to stay with him which even added to the Manager’s anxiety as now there was no opportunity of going back to talk to the staff team waiting frustratingly patient.

The child protection officers were blunt and to the point:  “You are accused by two young girls (Christian names given only) of sexual misconduct in that you touched their breasts and on two occasions, put your hands between their legs. Joe was frantic. The air was rent with language spoken in anger and disbelief which did little to help his case as this was seen by the interviewers as a common ploy by the guilty. The Manager asked if Joe should have a solicitor present but was told that this was not in the procedures as no formal charges were being brought yet which was when one should be present.

The Manager then asked what the exact charges were but was informed that until actual charges were brought, the specific allegations would not be disclosed. Joe wanted to know why and asked as such in a loud and demanding manner enquiring about his welfare, that of his family and colleagues and for his job. Sorry came the reply once again, but this was the procedures. Joe demanded to know ‘what bloody procedures’.

The interviewing officers again stated they were referring to the Local Authority Child Protection Handbook which encompassed all the relevant procedures,  which of course the centre should have but did not.

They wanted Joe to recall what he was doing on such and such a date and could he remember the two girls in question. At this point Joe lost his temper shouting that they must be joking asking him to recall such information as he had worked with well over fifty young people over the past few weeks. The lead interviewing officer told him not to worry as they could get all the information from the centre’s logs. Clearly the interviewing officers had not grasped the notion that the centre only kept logs of the actual activities and not of incidents, or recordings of interaction with groups so nothing would be gleaned from this area.

That was it. The complaint in its entirety. But what did it all mean! Joe’s adrenalin was flowing thick and fast and his stomach was churning over and over. At one point he became very angry and defensive which did little to soften the approach of the two investigating officers. The Manager tried to calm Joe down but he felt inadequate knowing that anything he had to say would be over shadowed by the allegations and the resultant gossip and innuendo which may well follow Joe and his family when the news leaked out, which it surely would.

Joe was told that he should not discuss the allegation with any of his colleagues nor get in touch with the girl or members of her family. He was to be suspended until the investigation had been completed and the investigation team had delivered their findings. The atmosphere became even more tense when Joe asked when he was suspended from and he was told to go home immediately without talking to any of his colleagues and not to visit the centre until told the findings had been published.

Walking out of the conference room door, Joe was in shock. In addition to the anger he was experiencing, he was also feeling emotionally drained and psychologically bereft.  What do I say to my wife and kids? Why should I not discuss the allegation with any of my work mates? Why did the police want a copy of my personal file and why were they interested in where else I had worked? Would I be on full pay, half pay or no pay at all whilst suspended? What happens if the allegation is upheld, how will this affect my career prospects and what are my legal rights in all of this? Am I entitled to legal aid? Who is there who can offer me advice and support?

As the manager knew nothing about employment law or the policy for suspending someone, he could not answer any of Joe’s questions. How was he going to tell his wife and it would be intolerable not to talk to Pete a work colleague who lived next door and whose children came into his house to play with his own children after school and at weekends. ‘Why was this  happening to me’ was all he could say over and over again as he drove home.

Back at the centre, after the police had interviewed all the staff individually, they  were told that they should not discuss the incident with Joe and if possible, not make any contact with him until the investigation was over. There were many angry comments made to the Manager after the police had left. Who was going to give Joe support and advice? Why should they not discuss the allegation in context of their work?  As they believed that Joe was innocent of the allegation, what did the future hold for them if someone made similar allegations against them?  What were these Policy and Procedures and the Local Authority Child Protection handbook the interviewing officers were talking about and why did they not have a daily log book system in place where any incident could be recorded for just such a time? The Manager of course, did not have any answers. In essence, he had no idea about policy and procedures, or child protection strategies within the working environment and was therefore, unable to allay their fears.

Three weeks went by and Joe was still waiting to hear if he was still going to be paid or not whilst he was suspended and of course, no one had been out to offer him support or advice. During all this time he was unable to visit the centre as he had to keep off site in order to comply with Child Protection Procedures.

When the investigation finally came to an end seven weeks later, there was a mixed reception to the findings.

First the investigation found that Joe had not sexually abused any young people nor was he guilty of sexual misconduct. However, it was found that the Centre’s policy and procedures in relation to working with children and young people, was inadequate and afforded non of the staff, protection from any misguided actions that surrounded their work and which may be misinterpreted by young clients, some of whom are on their first away from home experience.

It transpired, that the practice of the instructors was to put on full body harnesses for some activities and this is what Joe had done on both occasions. The putting of his hands between the young girls legs was just to take hold of the end of the sling so as to bring it up to complete the harness. The touching of the breasts was also accidental when he was putting on chest harnesses. In this respect, there was no case to answer.

Joe returned to work, still angry and perplexed at what had happened to him and the atmosphere among the staff group when working with young people was never the same as it used to be before all this happened. In essence, the allegations were made more out of spite as both young people who made the allegations had been earlier victims of familial child sexual abuse and therefore their boundaries and understandings of adult/child relationships was both distorted and contaminated by their own adult abusers. Given that the issues and consequences for children and young people who have been sexually abused involves a distorted understanding of inter-personal relationships which entails picking up on signals differently than what they were intended to be, in this context, Joe’s smiles and positive responses to their  friendly behaviour towards him was seen as a ‘come on signal’. However, when Joe rebuffed their more precocious behaviour this was interpreted as rejection resulting in false allegations about his conduct in order to ‘get back’ at him.

With hindsight, could things have been different?  Yes they could.

First the centre could have had Policy and Procedures which direct staff how to respond to the childish infatuations of young people and how to recognise the ‘come on’ trap that so many children and young people play.

Second, there should have been written guidelines on how to prepare young people for activities with equipment. This should not entail putting on harnesses and such like by the instructor, but by showing how to do it allowing individuals to put the equipment on themselves thus negating any misunderstanding of bodily contact.

Third, procedural practices should have been in place which prevented instructors from being alone with a group or of dealing emotionally and physically with individuals, males or females as both can and have within the residential child care arena, made false (as well as truthful) allegations of sexual misconduct and abuse by adults in charge of their welfare.

Fourth, strategies should have been in place for staff support when such allegations are made(whether false or not) with clear guidelines relating to suspension, pay and support and union involvement.

Fifth, the centre should have had a copy of their local authority Child Protection Procedures and all staff should have signed to say they had read it and understood it.

Lastly, all the staff should have received training on how to identify potential risks through precocious behaviour; how to recognise potential threats to staff safety and welfare within the holistic sense of their work; how to work effectively in relation to keeping colleagues ‘safe’; how to record such incidents so that at any later date, when false allegations are made, there is evidence to support their story and that of their colleagues; and in transactional analysis terminology, games people play in relation to ego states and life scripts.

Whilst it is acknowledged that many children and young people who attend residential centres to participate in adventure activities, pose no risk or threat to staff, it has to be acknowledged that if current research is correct and that one in six females and one in ten males have had negative sexual experiences before the age of sixteen, then it figures that some of these will be component parts of groups that attend such activity centres. Given the resultant behaviour of many victims of childhood abuse, staff who work and deal with children and young people have a duty to themselves and to their colleagues, to be aware of such potential risks and dangers. Similarly, employers have a duty to provide such appropriate training and written resources for their employees.
This article relates to current practice in the United Kingdom although it has implications for every adult who is employed to work with and for children and young people, especially those who are deemed vulnerable.

Clear lessons need to be learnt from the article as they clearly indicate how vulnerable such employees are themselves. It is therefore, everyone’s duty to protect themselves, their colleagues and others from such negative and inappropriate responses.

F. Grant
2003 ©
This article appeared in Horizons Magazine, published by The Institute for Outdoor Learning.