Giving Women the Benefit of the Doubt? Examining Gender Differences in Schools' Management of Sexual Allegations Against Employees.

IF 1.4 4区 心理学 Q3 FAMILY STUDIES Journal of Child Sexual Abuse Pub Date : 2024-07-29 DOI:10.1080/10538712.2024.2385469
Amanda L Robertson, Danielle A Harris, Susanne Karstedt
{"title":"Giving Women the Benefit of the Doubt? Examining Gender Differences in Schools' Management of Sexual Allegations Against Employees.","authors":"Amanda L Robertson, Danielle A Harris, Susanne Karstedt","doi":"10.1080/10538712.2024.2385469","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Comparing women's and men's sexual offending patterns in educational settings is a relatively recent empirical endeavor. Accordingly, gender-based examinations of schools' management of sexual allegations are lacking. We address this gap by drawing on a unique administrative dataset from an Australian jurisdiction that captures alleged improper sexual conduct by educational employees. We compare 809 female- and male-perpetrated cases reported between 2015 and 2019 with respect to event, location, victim, and perpetrator characteristics, as well as the ensuing risk management strategies and sanctions. Compared to men, reported women were younger, employed on more secure employment arrangements, and less often had a relevant discipline history. Most alleged event characteristics did not significantly differ based on perpetrator gender. Women's alleged perpetration, however, more often occurred in places external to school and involved more serious sexual victimization of comparatively older male students. After controlling for event, victim, perpetrator, and allegation characteristics there was nearly no support for a gender bias in institutional responses. However, a lack of any action was more often observed in female-perpetrated cases under very specific and limited conditions. Resultant implications for the management and oversight of employee-related allegations are discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":47645,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Child Sexual Abuse","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Child Sexual Abuse","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10538712.2024.2385469","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"FAMILY STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Comparing women's and men's sexual offending patterns in educational settings is a relatively recent empirical endeavor. Accordingly, gender-based examinations of schools' management of sexual allegations are lacking. We address this gap by drawing on a unique administrative dataset from an Australian jurisdiction that captures alleged improper sexual conduct by educational employees. We compare 809 female- and male-perpetrated cases reported between 2015 and 2019 with respect to event, location, victim, and perpetrator characteristics, as well as the ensuing risk management strategies and sanctions. Compared to men, reported women were younger, employed on more secure employment arrangements, and less often had a relevant discipline history. Most alleged event characteristics did not significantly differ based on perpetrator gender. Women's alleged perpetration, however, more often occurred in places external to school and involved more serious sexual victimization of comparatively older male students. After controlling for event, victim, perpetrator, and allegation characteristics there was nearly no support for a gender bias in institutional responses. However, a lack of any action was more often observed in female-perpetrated cases under very specific and limited conditions. Resultant implications for the management and oversight of employee-related allegations are discussed.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
给予女性怀疑的好处?研究学校在处理对员工的性指控时的性别差异。
比较女性和男性在教育环境中的性犯罪模式是一项相对较新的实证研究。因此,基于性别的学校性指控管理研究还很缺乏。我们利用澳大利亚一个司法管辖区的独特行政数据集来弥补这一不足,该数据集记录了教育员工被指控的不当性行为。我们比较了 2015 年至 2019 年间报告的 809 起女性和男性犯罪案件的事件、地点、受害者和犯罪者特征,以及随之而来的风险管理策略和制裁措施。与男性相比,被报告的女性更年轻,就业安排更有保障,且较少有相关的纪律处分史。大多数被控事件的特征并不因施暴者的性别而有显著差异。然而,女性被控的犯罪事件更多发生在校外场所,并且涉及对年龄相对较大的男学生进行更严重的性侵害。在对事件、受害者、犯罪者和指控特征进行控制后,几乎不支持机构反应中的性别偏见。然而,在非常特殊和有限的条件下,在女性犯罪案件中更常观察到缺乏任何行动的情况。本文讨论了由此对与雇员有关的指控的管理和监督产生的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
10.50%
发文量
38
期刊介绍: The Journal of Child Sexual Abuse is interdisciplinary and provides an essential interface for researchers, academicians, attorneys, clinicians, and practitioners. The journal advocates for increased networking in the sexual abuse field, greater dissemination of information and research, a higher priority for this international epidemic, and development of effective assessment, intervention, and prevention programs. Divided into sections to provide clear information, the journal covers research issues, clinical issues, legal issues, prevention programs, case studies, and brief reports, focusing on three subject groups - child and adolescent victims of sexual abuse or incest, adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse or incest, and sexual abuse or incest offenders.
期刊最新文献
Identifying PTSD and Complex PTSD Profiles in Child Victims of Sexual Abuse. Problem Sexual Behavior and Engagement in Therapeutic Intervention among Children Aged 4-12. Sexual Abuse, Commercial Sexual Exploitation, and Cumulative Adversity Among Sexually Diverse and Non-Sexually Diverse Girls in the Juvenile Justice System. Somatic Problems in Children Disclosing Sexual Abuse: The Mediating Role of Alexithymia and Dissociation Incident, Individual, and Campus Factors Associated with Cisgender Men's Post Sexual Victimization Formal Help Seeking.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1