As you may have read recently, much concern has been displayed for the apparent lack of standards under which Exodus youth member ministries operate. Peterson Toscano has led the push to give Alan Chambers, president of Exodus, the opportunity to provide such guidelines and make certain they are enforced. This issue has caused much debate over how to best ensure the safety of these youth.
As reported here and here, Alan has to date been unwilling to respond to phone or email messages left by Toscano to indicate their progress as he had agreed to do. Today, however, Dr. Warren Throckmorton has received from Exodus their new youth guidelines with permission to publish them to his blog. Had they had made this simple gesture to Toscano earlier this month or even a few days ago, much concern could have been avoided.
We wanted to make this available promptly for those who have been deeply concerned about the matter. However, more analysis of the guidelines will be forthcoming. How do these compare to other large organizations who deal with youth, particularly in such a confined and captive way? And what part does the following point play in youth safety:
Release from liability: Member Ministries must obtain a release from liability, signed by the parents, prior to any ministry involvement with a youth.
Or this:
Confidentiality Agreement: Each Member Ministry that ministers to youth must have a policy in place addressing the issues of confidentiality and parental rights. This confidentiality agreement must be signed by the youth and by a parent prior to the youth’s involvement in the Member Ministry.
We are, however, glad to see that criminal background checks and youth/adult segregation guidelines have been enacted, as Toscano originally requested. These are most certainly basic for such activities. According to the entry at Thockmorton’s blog:
At renewal of membership, a ministry must agree to any changes. February, 2007 will complete the renewal process for all current member ministries.
And there is still no word on why these are not yet published on the Exodus site. That they exist is a good thing, and we are sure Peterson is happy about the news. But it would be irresponsible if we did not mention that, particularly today, these should have been their first thought and not their last – and certainly not years later.
Perhaps Alan, in the future you and Exodus can display your concern for these kids in more basic ways. How about a firm commitment that you will not accept youth against their will, regardless of parental desire?
More to come.
I don’t much understand what they mean by the Boundaries section, but I am guessing that participants are suppose to swear off going to certain types of places to avoid temptation.
It would be really nice to get a copy of one of these model confidentiality agreements from a Regional Office of Exodus. I don’t know if someone has a way of doing that. I am curious if Exodus is trying to protect the confidentiality of the youth participants in the program, or protect Exodus and the particular ministry from outside scrutiny. It might even be both.
The guidelines are awfully short. They look like something that could have been thrown together in an afternoon. I have no idea why it took them so long to address this. They could not possibly have thought that stonewalling on this was in their best interests.
I’m a little iffy on the release from liability clause.
I commented on this on Peterson’s blog, but I doubt they’ll ever make the minor’s consent a condition of acceptance. Given how much more tolerant my generation (I’m in my early 20s) is of gayness than my parents’, this would most likely lead to a dramatic drop in enrollment if properly administered. As well, it would be next to impossible to discern actual self-enrollment from vigorously coached consent from parents who are holding tuition, potential estrangement, physical/emotional abuse, etc. over the kid’s head– three guesses which side they’d err on, first two don’t count.
If I read correctly, their “youth program” isn’t much to write home about anyway, numerically speaking. If they enacted that guideline they might as well not have a minors division at all, and they’ll be loath to give up their last-ditch salvo against the generational paradigm shift. Look at how Stephen Bennett just changed his focus from actual LGBT people to their non-accepting families. He knows where the real capital is, financially and culturally.
The guidelines are awfully short. They look like something that could have been thrown together in an afternoon.
That was my impression as well. The guidelines for working with youth at my church make these look like a post-it note. I want to believe they know how important this is, but how serious can they be with these guidelines?
I’m certainly not an expert in this field, but this policy raises more questions than answers.
Criminal background checks are good; however, under group participation it is mentioned that: “. . . Younger adults working with youth will be considered on a case by case basis.” What are ‘younger adults’ and are they exempt from the criminal background checks?
There’s also no mention of any reporting requirements. Are ex-gay counselors required to report abuse allegations to authorities? It seems that would be a key provision.
Most disturbingly, there’s no mention of any training or certification requirements (other than state requirements) for ex-gay leaders to counsel youth. Apparently any one can be a ‘sexuality expert’ and counsel youth. Shouldn’t Exodus have a minimum training requirements for those who interact with youth?
It’s disturbing that a national 30-year ministry hasn’t developed a more detailed policy — especially in light of the church sex scandals that have made headlines in the last five years.
This brings up more questions than it answers, but I’m glad Throckmorton posted it.
Norm, why should the kids have it any better than adults? 😛
Liadan, I agree with you one thousand percent.
This is still not going to work.
In any situation that is directed at GAY PEOPLE exclusively, you will GET gay people concentrated in a way that’s inconsistent with normal integration.
The youth (or any other gay people) are expected to SUBMIT to the practices of Exodus and every other ex gay ministry or therapy.
There can be no workable guidelines because there is NO NECESSITY for their practices…nor any results that can be qualified for the purposes of say…the Federal Trade Commission.
The reason why the Catholic Church, and any other church that can’t realistically address gay people or their needs is because it’s based in BIAS.
The bias itself creates the motive, but not the necessity.
Exodus adresses the MOTIVE for young people and adults to come to them is the result of anti gay inculcation.
They create THEIR OWN INDUSTRY.
Self perpetuation is frowned on by the FTC and other federal and state guidelines for a service.
For example, a car mechanic can’t break a car, or take a car and say it needs work when it doesn’t.
And then provide unnecessary or unfairly obtained need for their services.
And a mechanic certainly can’t require you to take the same car in for a lifetime if no results or qualified results come in a TIMELY way.
By making their authority (God) an intangible, it’s impossible for anyone to prove their results or effectivness.
Nor for how long a commitment.
Guidelines, in the case of Exodus, do not serve a gay person properly, and never can.
It’s perpetuity, without grounds for it.
And young people especially, are especiallly vulnerable to insecurity and feelings of being outsiders.
As you all know though, GAY kids are even MORE vulnerable and would be more willing to do anything if they believe it will make them feel better or fit in.
Or at least, less resistant to ministrations of the kind Exodus gives.
The ex gay industy…and it is an industry, do not identify gay people well.
And misdiagnose often.
In any other trade, this wouldn’t be allowed, nor unchallenged.
Exodus should get out of the business of exclusivity with gay people…period.
There are always other options for someone who is ‘struggling’..and often it’s not their sexual orientation, but something else entirely.
I think its beyond sad, instead of doing the maximum to protect children from any harm (real, or perceived, since of course exodus is BASED on their perceptions of sexuality) they seem to have done the bare minimum to appease critics. I’m a little confused by Section C to tell you the truth. Does it matter to Exodus if the Youth’s signature is coerced? Why should the Youth be required to sign anything? What happens if and when they refuse and the parents cannot force them to sign it? Would the member ministry be forced to not accept the youth? Would any money the parent gave the group be returned?
I’d have to check with an attorney, but I believe the signature of a minor means absolutely nothing. A minor cannot be held to a contract.
Kind of odd that these very important, official guidelines are released by Exodus in Microsoft Word format. They can be easily altered before being passed on to others. All professional ministries I know of issue their official documents in PDF format.
Correct, a minor cannot be held to a contract. So why ask them to sign anything? Sounds like a PR move to me, totally lacking substance. In fact, interestingly that’s one of two things a minor is “required” by exodus to sign (as I said, I question rather heavily whether a minor would actually be denied entry into such a program if they absolutely refused to sign that document as required by section C).
The other thing a minor is “required” by exodus to sign (otherwise of COURSE the member ministry will lose money from exodus because its in the guidelines, right?) is the “boundaries” policy, the list of rules that a member of one of these programs must follow. Now, a little reminder of “boundaries” in for example LIA/R in fact, I’ve got a feeling its the manner these guidelines were made public (in a blog post by a certain gay teen we all remember from last year. Out of respect for his privacy concerns I won’t name him) that requires the provision that a Youth sign a copy of these guidelines prior to entry in a member ministry. We know that the Youth a year ago who won’t be named by me found a copy of these guidelines on his parents computer and that in anger at being lied to by his parents he posted them online in his request for assistance.
Of course with all that background, Section F doesn’t say how soon prior to admittance in a program a Youth must receive notice of the policies of the group he’s entering. In fact it is somewhat misleading because the parents are not required to sign off on the policies their son or daughter are to be subjected to, only the child is and their signature is, legally, officially, meaningless. The only thing regarding boundaries a parent is required to sign is the release from liability which is honestly the only document that seems to matter.
Of course it’d be interested to read Exodus’s “parental rights” form to see exactly what “rights” parents have regarding their own children (seriously, could they have come up with a more condescending term?)
How ironic.
The President of Exodus, Mike Haley, is himself absolutely prohibited from having direct contact or interaction of any kind with the youth.
That’ll no doubt make Exodus Conferences a bit of a minefield for him.
(I presume Exodus thinks “sexual misconduct” includes an arrest for prostitution?)
And odd… but Bob Van Dornelan’s Broken Yoke Ministries — gaol time for first and second-degree sexual assault of a minor — not only remains an Exodus Ministry but he’s one of their regional Representatives.
Equally fascinating as this threadbare add-on is what’s missing for their readers: that Confidentiality agreement? That statement on Parental Rights? Given the guidelines cannot be read without them, those should have been attached.
(Frankly I don’t know why all these aren’t openly available on the Exodus site in any case. But we need not guess what “Parental Rights” means to Exodus in any case…)
Every policy should also be backed by solid procedure, or is it is basically useless.
Where are the standard Incident Report forms?
Who investigates? What is the process?
What could be the possible outcomes?
Where is the statement detailing the rights of the client?
Where are minimum standards? For services? For employee qualifications or training?
If it has taken Exodus all year to produce these wholly inadequate “guidelines” one can well understand why 30 years of operation has yet to produce any data that “change is possible”.
As David so aptly said: “The guidelines for working with youth at my church make these look like a post-it note.”
If these standards were a swimsuit… they would be indecent.
Ack, missed a bit in the cut and pastes.
(I presume Exodus thinks “sexual misconduct” includes an arrest for prostitution? Or are Exodus leaders not held to the same standards they demand of others? Oh, silly me: forget I even asked that!)
I could have done without the extra “in any case” too, I guess. sigh.
So, why didn’t they contact Toscano with this information? I think the answer is simple. It’s because he is so reasonable, nice and speaks the language of evangelicals.
That way he is sort of a nightmare opponent to Exodus. At least in my mind, when I was entangled in evangelical christianity, it wouldn’t matter if someone like, say, Wayne Besen, said some problematic truths about my organization, just because of the way he writes.
Beacuse of this, I think that communicating directly with Peterson wasn’t an option to Chambers.
I am in agreement that we should hold Exodus to standards that will protect youth. However, I believe I need to clarify some misconceptions.
First (technicality) Alan Chambers is President and Mike Haley is Chairman. As such, Mike probably has no interaction with participants, anyway. (and considering Alan’s political and publicity and fundraising schedule, I’m doubtful he has much contact with living breathing ex-gays as well… but that’s just a guess)
Second, not all Exodus affiliates accept youth.
Finally, as I understand it, Exodus is neither a corporation nor a franchise. Each individual ministry has its own structure and rules and is only loosely affiliated with the national umbrella group. The guidelines probably should be viewed as requirements for local ministries to set up their own local rules rather than a command from on high of what the local rules should be.
In other words, Exodus is saying “you must have the following protections” but leaving the details up to the individual ministries. Each ministry may have specific needs in relation to separating youth from adults (space, personnel, meeting times) that may be completely different from the requirements of another ministry.
I encourage us to be diligent in the protection of vulnerable and powerless kids, but at the same time let’s be cognizant of the Exodus structure.
I haven’t noticed anyone suggesting that Exodus has that kind of control over the minutia of each ministry. They can, however, require as much as is needed or not allow them to be associated with Exodus. Taking a firm stand on this issue would go a long way to ensure the basic safety of youth who are already in somewhat compromising situations. It would also illustrate to any such programs, Exodus member ministries or no, that such things are paramount in dealing with youth.
Can you honestly say that the “new” guidelines should be considered anything more than a half-hearted attempt which appear to have been cobbled together over a day or two?
The guidelines probably should be viewed as requirements for local ministries to set up their own local rules rather than a command from on high of what the local rules should be.
Ok, setting aside the effectiveness of the guidelines released yesterday, what is the process then by which Exodus knows these member ministries have set up effective guidelines of their own? Is this the extent of Exodus’ involvement, a few paragraphs and your are on your own? Who oversees the process, where is the follow up? Where is the transparency if those concerned with this can only obtain information dribbled out through a strategic blog without entertaining feedback?
I see enormous problems with this, and the shame of it is that it could be (and should be) handled so easily. This is a page out of the “How to absolutely not handle responsibility” handbook.
They CAN’T have any guidelines in this regard.
Their standards are virtually impossible to meet, they’ve had to keep shifting them anyway. They might as well be made of quicksand.
Most importantly, because YOUTH don’t need them.
They are addressing something that’s not A PROBLEM with guidelines from things that ARE.
Such as substance addiction.
Substance addiction has results. Whether you continue to use…or don’t.
Self satisfaction and esteem in a young person requires some framework of integration and diversity of people.
Exodus CONCENTRATES gay people together, because of their unrealistic attitude. And their arrogance that it’s THEIR job to intervene at all.
Substance addicts require several different choices, which doesn’t require religious intervention.
Not true for the gay person. The intervention is virtually ALWAYS religious.
In many ways, just as the writers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights were very smart to realize…religious principles are damn near impossible to interpret evenly, responsibly or fairly.
The same is true here of Exodus-their structure is too loose, their claims too vague and their agenda has loose ends.
It would be impossible for them to structure their approach to gay people or straight people fairly or responsibly.
They have relied on claims and refutable science exclusively by people who are also religious, and avoid the results of the peer bodies who are less biased that way.
No other groups who claim any kind of emotional process with a certain end result, could get away with ignoring respected peer science and going for the archaic, unproven and damaging.
‘Just because they believe it.’
Especially when the peer body agrees that such bias is damaging and unworkable for mental and physical health.
That’s THEIR job, not that of Exodus.
Exodus is self appointed and exists for no other reason a fear basis.
In the meantime, Exodus wants to address Congress to NOT support hate crimes laws.
Their political aims are in direct contradiction of their social and religious one.
They are working one against the other if not the middle, so to speak.
BTW….Exodus, nor any of it’s members will never really be able to conduct any ‘background checks’.
They would have to be in a state that provides the data base for CONVICTED sex offenders.
And that doesn’t always distinguish what exactly the conviction was for.
Most importantly, whereabouts can be inaccurate.
A person would have to be committed to take the time to look through the whole thing, or pay a private detective to do it.
And often, very young adults might have sealed files that cannot be accessed for a juvenile situation.
So, Exodus wouldn’t be able to vet their people at all.
Considering how many ex basket cases have made claims to have had lives of some criminal activity of their own.
Prostitution, drug use…intentional spread of HIV, domestic assault on former lovers, mental hospital stays,
it’s not a good idea for most of the leadership of the ex gay industry to sit in judgement of innocent gay children as guides.
We’ve witnessed for ourselves that they believe such horrendous experiences are inevitable when you’re gay.
This is a lie, and this is no way to start off addressing a young person’s sexual orientation.
Results.
Results mean EVERYTHING.
Not their opinion.
Between all of us, Wayne Besen and those who he has involved in TWO, there is a class action that can be taken here.
I think you’ve laid out exactly the concerns I have with these guidelines
Your concerns are valid. As they should be of the parents considering having their children attend.
But guys, isn’t a good deal of the ad line for Exodus is :
“trust us”…?