News

VOTF weighs in on Seattle Case

For the first time in Seattle history, a clergy sex abuse case appears headed to trial.  read more »

The bishops claim one thing, the state finds something very different

 Comparison of State versus Church Audits
by Carolyn Disco
Survivor Support Chairman
New Hampshire Voice of the Faithful
April 1, 2008

Child protection programs have been developed and implemented in Catholic dioceses throughout the United States since the sexual abuse scandal broke in 2002. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has done what they call audits, not in the financial sense, but annual reviews of their implementation of the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People, 1. known popularly as the Dallas Charter.

 
We in New Hampshire have an unparalleled opportunity to evaluate USCCB audits because Bishop John McCormack also agreed to five annual audits by the New Hampshire Attorney General. That was part of a plea bargain agreement in 2002 2. to avoid criminal prosecution of the Diocese for child endangerment.
 
So, we can read and compare for ourselves what church-sponsored audits concluded, versus what independent law enforcement audits found.
 
There are striking differences at the outset:
1)      USCCB auditors have no right of access to personnel files or other confidential materials.3.
2)      USCCB audits/surveys do not count allegations against the following abusers:
a.       religious order brothers (Benedictine, Franciscan, etc.) since technically they are not
considered clergy 4. 
b.      victims of seminarians who did not go on to ordination 5.
c.       mentally handicapped victims whose abuse did not begin before their 18th birthdays 6.
 
A Merrimack man abused by two seminarians who left is not counted as a victim under this standard.
 
Compare 2005 results
 
Because the Diocese’s court challenge delayed the beginning of state audits for two years, 2005 is the first year when both church and state audits were completed. It is important, however, to decipher when site visits were conducted to compare results more accurately. So, who said what, in sequence: August 2004 USCCB, June 2005 AG, November 2005 USCCB?
 
US Conference of Catholic Bishops 2004:
l “The diocese is found to be compliant with all Articles of the Charter for the Protection on (sic)
Children and Young People.” 7.
     
 
How can the bishops find full compliance, when ten months later, the attorney general finds this:
 
Attorney General 2005:
 l “The Diocese has exhibited a general level of ineffectiveness in enforcing compliance with the
Agreement and its own policies. This ineffectiveness has resulted in: repeated missed deadlines for implementation of the policies, incomplete training, incomplete written acknowledgements, lack of background checks, and unfilled positions…The level of compliance with the policies and agreement at the local level is inconsistent at best. No site was 100% compliant…in one parish
 
only 16% of employees or volunteers who worked with children had a sex offender registry check completed…Even at the diocesan level, compliance was not 100%. Eight and one-half percent of priests had not signed the acknowledgements – an express requirement that should have been completed more than 2 years ago.” 8. Only one paragraph in a five-page letter mentioned some accomplishments.
 
US Conference of Catholic Bishops 2005:(site visits five months after the state auditors’ visits)
l “Based on the information furnished to The Gavin Group, Inc. on January 6, 2006, the Diocese of
Manchester is now in compliance with Article 13 (screening) of the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People. The Diocese remains non-compliant with Article 12 (training) based on the fact that the majority of children are still to be trained. Please advise me when the training of the children is completed.” 9.
 
A diocese could be in full compliance one year (2004), and not the next (2005), because the goals were movable. For example, as long as a training program had been selected before, a diocese was compliant, even if it was not implemented. 10.
 
In addition to audits by the USCCB, church-sponsored audits were done on the diocesan level by the Diocesan Review Board. Their results could be expected to, and did correlate with the complimentary findings of their national counterparts.
 
Diocesan Review Board 2005:  (audit visits the same month as the state auditors) 
l “…most parishes and Catholic schools were in substantial compliance with the (screening
of church personnel) requirements…the Diocesan Review Board concludes that substantial compliance (in training of personnel) was found throughout the Diocese, although compliance with the administrator's record keeping compliance varied.” 11.  
 
The state audit criticized the Diocesan Review Board for prepping personnel in advance of visits by DRB auditors: “Such reviews should not be predicated by advanced notice to the selected parishes as this could potentially alter the results of the review.” 12.  
 
So, whose audits provide the most trustworthy, believable assessment? The attorney general’s detailed analysis, or the bishops’ generalized conclusions on both the national and local levels?
 
In addition, the AG audit alone revealed the case of Priest A,13. removed for inappropriate conduct, sent for treatment, returned to ministry, again removed, with revelations of his accessing up to 10,000 pages of pornography, including possibly child pornography. No report was made to the AG’s office for four months, and then done only as a courtesy, according to the Diocese, apparently because no abuse of a minor was alleged.
 
The AG asked the Diocese two years in a row 14. 15.to develop a policy for handling inappropriate conduct as a possible precursor warning sign of potential sexual misconduct. The first request was apparently ignored; the second request may or may not be addressed in the third state audit released today, covering 2007.
 
Compare 2006 results
 
Again, who said what?
     
Attorney General 2006:
l “As an initial matter, I commend the Diocese on making significant advances toward implementing
an effective program for the protection of children. The 2005 Audit identified substantial deficiencies in the Diocese’s compliance program. Following the release of the 2005 Audit, the Diocese provided the State with a detailed action plan explaining the steps that the Diocese intended
 
 
to take to correct these deficits. Based on the 2006 Audit, it appears that the Diocese has fulfilled those benchmarks…
 
“Despite these laudable actions, the 2006 Audit has identified some critical gaps that need to be corrected…Tone At The Top. One of the most troubling findings…is the lack of “acceptance or commitment to cooperation with a process” exhibited by senior members of the Diocese…particularly Fr. Edward Arsenault…There appeared to be a reticence to answer some questions, as well as either a misunderstanding or disregard for terms describing commonly accepted practices such as ‘self-reporting’ and ‘testing for verification,’ as well as the suggestion that there was no risk of a priest not being removed timely.” 16. Transmittal letter p.1-2
 
It does not appear the Diocese independently verified documentation at the parishes, schools or camps…” 16. Transmittal letter p. 3 of 4
 
“…consideration should be given to making this body (the Diocesan Review Board) more independent, more empowered and in some way, at least partly accountable for the Program’s effectiveness…The responsibilities of the DRB previously included a regular compliance audit…and a report to the Christian Faithful (about it)…the Policy no longer requires the DRB report to the Christian Faithful…” 16. Report p. 18 of 134, #11 and #12
 
“The review of diocesan policies dealing with sexual abuse…involving minors has been changed… from being required every two years to…only every four years.” 16. Report p. 15 of 134, #6
 
US Conference of Catholic Bishops 2006:  
l “Based on the analysis of the results of the 2006 Focused Audit (of only Article 12, training) of the
Diocese of Manchester, you have been found to be in compliance with the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People.   
The conclusions reached as to the compliance of your Diocese with the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People are based on the completeness and accuracy of the information furnished by the Diocese to The Gavin Group, Inc. during the course of this audit.” 17.
 
Diocesan Review Board 2006:  
l ”In as much as the Diocese of Manchester was audited both by the New Hampshire Attorney
General’s Office designee (KPMG, LLP) and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) in 2006, the Diocesan Review Board opted to forego an additional agreed-upon procedures audit by Howe, Riley and Howe (HRH). Notably, the USCCB recently notified the Diocese that it was found to be in compliance with the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People for 2006.”
 
“The Board found that significant progress has been made in the screening and training of church personnel who regularly work with minors…Substantial progress has been made… with respect to background screening of Church personnel…site reviews, which have already begun, involve a thorough examination of records and files and meetings with key staff.
 
“The first site visits will be paid to those parishes or schools that faced some challenges in complying with the screening and training requirements of the Policy.
Based on its work and successes in 2006, it is obvious that the Office for Ministerial Conduct has taken responsibility for ensuring compliance with the terms of the Policy.”
 
Are all these audits discussing the same Manchester diocese? Attorney General Kelly Ayotte accused Arsenault of playing “word games” and a lack of candor. Arsenault walked out of a meeting with state
 
 
auditors 15 minutes after it started. He engaged in a charade in which he forced the lead auditor to repeat a question from a second auditor that everyone had just heard clearly. Only the lead auditor was allowed to speak to Arsenault directly. Read more. 18.
 
2007 results
 
US Conference of Catholic Bishops 2007:  
l “ Based on the analysis of the results of the 2007 Full Audit of the Diocese of Manchester, you have
been found to be in compliance with the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People.
     
The conclusions reached as to the compliance of your Diocese with the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People are based on the completeness and accuracy of the information furnished by the Diocese to The Gavin Group, Inc. during the course of this audit.” 19.
 
The Diocese is fully compliant with the Dallas Charter. This is the first year, however, that dioceses did not have a grace period in which to reach compliance.20. 
 
It is worth noting that in the first four bishops’ annual audits from 2003 through 2006, dioceses were given two tries at the apple. An initial audit in late summer or early fall would reveal certain deficiencies, which then led to a list of required actions. If the required actions were completed by the end of the year, then the diocese would be in full compliance. Nationally, about 74% of dioceses would be in compliance in the first round, but by the end of the year usually over 95% or more would make the second round.21. It was the second round results that were trumpeted in full court press each year. There is no such leeway in the AG audits; the first grade is the actual result.
 
Attorney General 2007:
l What these results are will be released today in the third of four annual state audits.
 
We hope for good news, but are chastened by the record to date when it comes to trusting the Diocese to act forthrightly.
 
The last state audit will be done this year, after which there will be no way to compare church audits with truly independent evaluations.
 
 
References and links
1.  Dallas Charterhttp://www.usccb.org/ocyp/charter.shtml revised 2005
3.  No access to personnel files http://www.usccb.org/ocyp/annualreport.pdf p. 5 (15 of 72) hard copy p. 6, para 2 under “Completeness/Accuracy”
4.  Religious brothers excluded http://www.usccb.org/ocyp/annualreport.pdfp. 60 (70 of 72) Appendix C, 2nd paragraph under “Allegations” and p. 61 (71 of 72) top of page
5.  Seminarians excluded http://www.bishop-accountability.org/resources/resource-files/churchdocs/FinalSurvey.pdf p.9 of 33, last question, bottom of page
6.  Mentally handicapped http://www.bishop-accountability.org/resources/resource-files/churchdocs/FinalSurvey.pdf p.12 of 33, 2nd para under Victim Survey
7.  USCCB 2004 audit results for Manchester – http://www.usccb.org/ocyp/dioceses04/manchesternh.shtml scroll to compliance section
8.  AG 2005             – transmittal letter http://doj.nh.gov/publications/nreleases/pdf/Letter.pdf p. 2, 2nd and last para; p. 3, 1st and 2nd para.
                   – report http://doj.nh.gov/publications/nreleases/033006diocese_report.html entire report, but esp. Executive Summary at p. 5 of 39, beginning at para 6, through end of p. 6 at http://doj.nh.gov/publications/nreleases/pdf/NH_AG_Final_Report.pdf
9.  USCCB 2005 audit results for Manchester (one paragraph letter from Gavin Group) removed from diocesan website – copy in personal files; only media release available http://www.catholicnh.org/child-safety/reports-and-updates/media-release---2005-gavin-group-audit-033006/ . Release erroneously states that Gavin letters for 11/25/05 and 1/6/06 are posted. I wrote the webmaster on 12-21-07 asking they be posted; no reply to date.
10.  Compliance terms http://www.usccb.org/ocyp/dioceses04/2004annualreport.pdf top of p.22 of 62
12. AG 2005            – http://doj.nh.gov/publications/nreleases/pdf/NH_AG_Final_Report.pdf p. 38-39 of 39
14.  AG inappr. conduct 2005 http://doj.nh.gov/publications/nreleases/pdf/NH_AG_Final_Report.pdf p.20 of 39, 2nd para #5
15.  AG inappr. conduct 2006 http://doj.nh.gov/publications/nreleases/pdf/050407KPMG_Diocese_report.pdf  p.18 of 134, 6th para #5b, and p. 25 of 134, 7th para # e.2
16.  AG 2006           – transmittal letter http://doj.nh.gov/publications/diocese_Bishop_Letter_2007.pdf  p. 1-2
                                – report http://doj.nh.gov/publications/nreleases/pdf/050407KPMG_Diocese_report.pdf  entire report, but esp. Executive Summary p. 6-7 of 134
17.  USCCB 2006 audit results for Manchester – http://www.catholicnh.org/media/files/child-safety/2006%20USCCB%20Audit.pdf one page with two sentences
18.  Arsenault          – “Diocese’s new web site hides some uncomfortable truths” 10-22-07
19.  USCCB 2007 audit results for Manchester– http://www.catholicnh.org/media/files/child-safety/2007%20USCCB%20Audit.pdf one page with two sentences
20.  Grace period USCCB 2007 audit results – http://www.usccb.org/ocyp/annualreport.pdfp. 3 (13 of 72) left column, last bullet
21.  Required actions 2004 example http://www.usccb.org/ocyp/dioceses04/2004annualreport.pdfp.21 of 62 last two para, p.22 first para
 
(Every effort is made to find current links to footnotes, particularly on the diocesan website. It sometimes posts, moves, removes and then reposts documents, so it can be difficult periodically to locate them.)

 

 

AFFILIATE News – VOTF New Hampshire

Attorney General finds improved cooperation in diocesan audit, though issues remain.

by Carolyn Disco, Survivor Support Chair, NH Voice of the Faithful

The third annual state audit of the Diocese of Manchester’s implementation of its sexual abuse policy found an improved “tone at the top,” marked by openness and a more cooperative attitude on the part of diocesan officials. The welcome positive findings followed a difficult year in which Bishop John McCormack initially refused to participate in a fourth audit, an action the state was willing to litigate if necessary. McCormack changed his mind, perhaps in response to unfavorable press over prior negative audit results.

That was the essence of the report by New Hampshire Attorney General Kelly Ayotte and Associate Attorney General Kristin Spath to about 60 people at a Voice of the Faithful meeting last month. It was the attorney general’s third appearance before the group, continuing an annual tradition of updating members on the state’s progress in monitoring diocesan compliance.

Ayotte gave generous credit to McCormack and his staff – “even Fr. (Edward) Arsenault,” highly criticized in the previous audit – for significant enhancement in cooperation, and cited that as the most heartening development of all. The attorney general said there was an apparent breakthrough when McCormack decided it was more productive to work on what needs to be done, instead of fighting the state by dragging one’s heels. The turnaround is particularly evident in the bishop’s decision to participate in the fourth audit, though he may have realized he would have probably lost in court. Nonetheless, greater diocesan receptivity to recommendations and feedback, without disruptions, signals a much better working relationship.

There are still unsettled issues, Ayotte said; namely, the longstanding need for the Diocese to revise its abuse policy to state formally that a priest will be removed from ministry upon receipt of an allegation versus after completion of an investigation. The Agreement between state and diocese that specified state oversight clearly states the former. While immediate removal has been the practice, it needs to be memorialized in writing, something the Diocese has refused to do before, but will act on in the coming year. Ayotte emphasized that revising the policy to specify immediate suspension is very important to the state.

The state’s auditors found shortcomings in the lack of timetables for investigations of allegations, with no indication of even when they would begin. Likewise, timetables are needed for the escalation of disciplinary issues, and enforcement of safe environment program mandates. Ayotte said the goal is measurable thresholds and consistent application. The Diocese reassures her that every deficiency her office identified will be addressed, an encouraging shift.

A special part of the third audit covering 2007 was a random survey of 500 parishioners by the University of New Hampshire. It gauged understanding of diocesan policies and practices to prevent child sexual abuse. The attorney general said the Diocese was apprehensive about the results, which had both positive and negative outcomes.

It was good news that “more than 95 percent of respondents would contact law enforcement if they learned of an allegation of child sexual abuse.” A vast majority felt the Diocese would handle the matter appropriately. But 39 percent indicated “they never received communications from the Diocese about child abuse policies,” and 40 percent were only “slightly or not at all familiar” with them, Ayotte quoted from the audit findings. The Diocese needs to do a much better job communicating its policies and procedures, particularly the legal mandate for everyone to report abuse to civil authorities.

Sustainability of the child protection program over the long term as part of diocesan practice is the focus of the fourth and final audit, according to Ayotte. Regardless of who holds an office, the administrative structure needs to be in place to assure compliance with the law and sexual abuse policies and procedures.

The attorney general concluded her remarks by noting that after the audits are over, and after the agreement with the Diocese is technically concluded, her office will fight to protect children if they think an allegation has been improperly handled. “You will always have a friend and ear at the attorney general’s office,” she insisted. “That’s very, very important” to understand. She admitted that was not always the case with law enforcement in general, but it is now.

With equal insistence, Ayotte reiterated how important VOTF members are as parishioners in the Diocese. She is dependent on the laity to take responsibility to speak up if something is not right. “It’s up to you.” The right policies and procedures need to be in place, but they are insufficient if Catholics do not come forward. Everyone is a mandated reporter to civil authorities, and needs to be aware and vigilant. “It’s up to you,” she repeated. She also thanked VOTF for its support over the years.

Questions abounded in a lively Q&A. Why the sudden change of heart by the Diocese? A strategic business decision in the face of negative consequences for them, either in court or the media, or a genuine attitudinal shift due to self-reflection? How can they be trusted when the diocesan website simply lies about what the attorney general said regarding a prior audit? Claiming full compliance with the letter and the spirit of the agreement when her text says exactly the opposite.

Is the Diocese bound to continue training programs? What recourse does law enforcement have if they fold up initiatives already begun? Did they follow up on two requests by the auditors to reference “inappropriate conduct” like accessing pornography in the sexual abuse policy itself? It is not included, and can be a precursor warning sign of abuse. Has the hierarchy intervened to thwart audits? What about transparency?

Ayotte and her associate Spath welcomed the changed tone at the top, whatever its genesis, but suspect that unfavorable media coverage may have been a factor. Spath noted that previously the Diocese wanted a week’s notice before surprise visits by auditors, required follow-up questions from auditors be in writing, passed through their legal counsel first, and so forth. Now, that back and forth is gratefully eliminated.

Ayotte affirmed that she would not hesitate to prosecute if allegations were not reported in the future. But the vigilance of the laity about training programs or other requirements needs to be expressed publicly, since there is power in collective voices. She would join those voices, she said, though there is nothing she could do legally. Pointedly, the threat of civil liability is a deterrent if protections are not in place.

Including notices in parish bulletins requesting survivors to come forward, and reminding people they are mandated reporters under the law, are efforts Ayotte believes would extend the public discussion of abuse issues. It is such discussion that advances the cause of keeping children safe, a prime goal of law enforcement and society in general. VOTF attendees thanked Ayotte and Spath sincerely for their ongoing commitment, and willingness to meet again with them.

Links:

Cover letter from Attorney General Kelly Ayotte to Bishop John McCormack, March 28, 2008
http://doj.nh.gov/publications/nreleases/pdf/2008_diocese_letter.pdf

2007 Audit report dated January 15, 2008, released April 1, 2008 http://doj.nh.gov/publications/nreleases/pdf/
2008_diocese_assessment.pdf
Executive Summary p, 6-7; scroll to each section on “Findings” and “Recommendations” for ease of reading.

Response of Bishop John McCormack to Attorney General Kelly Ayotte, April 1, 2008
http://www.catholicnh.org/media/files/child-safety/AGLetter2008-04-01.pdf

Diocesan media release: http://www.catholicnh.org/news-events/
recent-releases/040108-protecting-children/

Diocesan website claim about 2006 audit: "The (AG's state audit) report confirms that the Diocese of Manchester has complied with the letter and spirit of the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People, all articles of the Agreement with the State of New Hampshire, and the diocesan sexual misconduct policy."

http://www.catholicnh.org/child-safety/reports-and-updates/
response-to-kpmg-assessment-dated-011707/

Attorney General’s 2006 evaluation: "Despite the substantial progress made by the Diocese, there are still some critical gaps and issues which need to be rectified before the Diocese of Manchester will be considered in full compliance with the Agreement or be considered to have a fully effective and sustainable compliance program...

The tone at the top, however, does not appear to be consistent among key personnel at the Diocese of Manchester... An improvement in the program’s senior leadership’s demonstrable tone is warranted.

 Finally, it has been almost four years since the Diocese and the Attorney General’s Office entered into the subject Agreement and while substantial progress has been made, the Diocese is still not in full compliance therewith and more structural and procedural enhancements are needed to achieve full, effective, and sustainable compliance."

http://doj.nh.gov/publications/nreleases/pdf/
050407KPMG_Diocese_report.pdf p. 6-7

Comparison of prior State versus Church audits: http://votf.org/Survivor_Support/audit.html

 

Bishop Robinson Update

Bishop Geoffrey Robinson's U.S. Tour 

Most Rev Geoffrey James Robinson DD, Auxiliary Bishop of Sydney, Australia, will will begin his U.S. visit later this month. The bishop will be speaking at several VOTF affiliate meetings and VOTF co-sponsored gatherings.

Bishop Robinson had been appointed by the Australian Bishops Conference and for nine years headed up the Conference’s Committee for Professional Standards, which developed procedures for responding to victims of sexual abuse. Confronting Power and Sex in the Catholic Church: Reclaiming the Spirit of Jesus is the title of his book, soon to be released in the U.S. The book, now in its fourth printing in Australia, has received much attention.

In 1994, Robinson was appointed by the Australian bishops to head a task force to deal with clerical sexual abuse cases. His book examines the underlying patterns in the church that allowed this abuse to happen. It is an effort to help the church face up to this reality and make the necessary changes to purify the church of those elements which obstruct its mission.

 
Syndicate content