A child sits alone in a gym hallway, evoking child sexual abuse risk factors tied to weak supervision.

The Hidden Conditions that Leave Children Vulnerable to Abuse

Beyond offenders, research points to enabling conditions that make abuse easier to commit and hide.

Ever since working at the University of Illinois on research with Nicole Allen, a national expert in family violence, I have kept returning to the same question: What would it take to prevent the abuse of children and women—not only to punish it after the fact, but to reduce the conditions that allow it to keep recurring?

Several years ago, Public Square Magazine provided initial funding for a research team to gather published studies that get at the roots of this question. Our small team reviewed thousands of studies to identify those focused specifically on risk factors making children more vulnerable to sexual abuse by parents, other relatives, or older teenagers.

These studies from around the world also examine the assault of children ages six to twelve and teenagers in various contexts, including competitive sports clubs, youth-serving nonprofits, churches, and schools, with dating violence also receiving much more attention in recent decades.

For many years, scholarship emphasized individual offenders and individual victims—perpetrator motives, disorders, and victim-level correlates. In more recent decades, researchers have increasingly examined the broader context around abuse: family stability, supervision, peer dynamics, institutional oversight, and community accountability—what some studies call “enabling factors” that make abuse easier to commit and harder to detect.

Last summer, I completed this in-depth review of approximately 500 abuse studies (285 involving adults, 215 involving youth), publishing summary versions of results focused on children and adult victims in the Deseret News, with the full-length, 60-page version released later that fall.  

This three-part series synthesizes findings from that deep dive into the risk factor research focused on the sexual abuse of young people. Part one outlines five recurring patterns that show up across countries and contexts—patterns that tend to increase vulnerability to child sexual abuse by weakening stability, supervision, and community safeguards.

Fragile Economic Well-Being 

Consistently, studies demonstrate that children growing up in families and neighborhoods with limited economic resources are more likely to experience sexual victimization—a risk that appears to grow as poverty deepens (parents unemployed, families going without food, living in substandard housing, adolescents forced to work).

The opposite is also true. For instance, youth whose fathers were employed were “about four times less likely to experience sexual abuse than respondents whose fathers were unemployed,” according to one Nigerian study from 2017.

Limited Educational Opportunities

Children with lower levels of education are more vulnerable to victimization—especially those who drop out completely. As Canadian researchers summarized in a 2007 review, “adolescents who have no intention of pursuing postsecondary schooling or who have not obtained their high school diploma are at greater risk of being victims of sexual and physical violence.”

By comparison, when children grow up where education is encouraged and valued, they are less likely to be sexually victimized. This shows up first in analyses of parental education level—with studies from Africa to Brazil to the U.S. showing that boys and girls whose parents have more education are also more likely to be protected against victimization (with risk consistently increasing as parental education declines).

Children’s own higher education level also decreases this risk, starting with just being in school at all. This is especially true if the schools are smaller, if the child feels comfortable at the school, and if they are doing well academically.

Growing Up Without Both Parents in a Loving Relationship

Following parental separation, divorce, or death, a child naturally experiences more residential instability and often significantly less parental supervision. That frequently includes a greater likelihood of being in close, regular contact with other older men who are “not the biological father.”

Children living with both parents are less likely to be victimized.

Studies frequently show that living with only one parent, whether father or mother, raises the risk of sexual victimization. Divorced parents, according to a 2023 Haitian analysis, are “strongly associated with higher odds of sexual victimization.” One U.S. research team observed in 2009 that “living with a non-intact family” is among the “most robust correlates of any abuse history.”

Consistently, children with incarcerated fathers also were 5.5 times more likely to experience child sexual abuse in one New Zealand analysis. Even higher risk comes when children live with neither of their parents, such as living with friends or another relative; living in foster care or other institutions; or especially if they are homeless and on the streets.

By contrast, multiple studies found that children living with both parents are less likely to be victimized—with the same Nigerian analysis finding children living in these homes “two times less likely to experience sexual abuse.”

Although most sexual abuse happens within homes, studies repeatedly show that children growing up with married parents are less likely to be abused in any way, including sexually. This is especially true when that marital relationship is cooperative and healthy—with “parental togetherness” and “harmony” identified in the Nigerian study as “protective factors that buffer children from sexual abuse.”

No such marital protections exist, however, in the presence of significant amounts of conflict and other kinds of emotional and physical aggression in the marriage and home generally. Another African study found a 2.5-fold increased risk of children being sexually abused when they experienced conflict between parents—a result that aligns with some U.S. data.

Low Quality of the Parent-Child Relationship

While you would expect negative parent-child relationships within any abusive context, there is repeated evidence that poor relationships with a mother and father also precede and predict abuse of various kinds, including sexual violence.

Available studies look specifically at vulnerability to victimization connected to a “lack of closeness” with a parent and “low warmth” relationships within a “rigid” family climate. Children whose parents display harsh, authoritarian parenting behavior are also at greater risk of being sexually victimized.

“Frequent parental monitoring” is connected with less sexual violence.


Also at risk are children whose parents exhibit “laxness of monitoring” and overall neglect. U.S. and Finnish researchers report that “adolescents who had older friends and parents who did not monitor their social relationships were at greater risk of sexual abuse.”

One Canadian study of abusive coaches observed how they often admitted to persuading mothers and fathers to “relinquish some or all parental control” to themselves—with the researchers acknowledging that “for the abused athlete, the bond of trust established between him or herself and the perpetrator is often a substitute for a weak relationship with a parent.”

By contrast, studies in Africa and the U.S. found, unsurprisingly, that “high” and “frequent parental monitoring” is connected with less sexual violence against children and teens. This is also true for positive, warm, healing relationships between parents and children overall.

Spotty Community Accountability

To the extent any community has allowed isolated access to children historically, this has sadly been shown to raise the risk of victimization. That includes abuse connected with ‘unguarded access to children’ by religious leaders, ‘unsupervised coaches,’ rogue law enforcement officers, predatory physicians, leaders of boys’ and girls’ clubs, and other organizations where perpetrators can seek out ‘volunteer work with organizations through which they can meet children.’

One study of 41 serial perpetrators found that 57 percent reported having picked their profession either partly or specifically in order to access children. Such privileged, close contact with youth is often taken for granted within special trusted roles—clergy, coach, teacher, mentor, counselor, camp staff, and scout leader.

Healthy peer groups make such a difference.

This is one reason that children whose families have healthy and ongoing social connections are less likely to be sexually victimized. And it’s why thorough accountability and supervision at the community level reduce the risk of abuse—something many kinds of communities have made progress on in recent decades.

This is also why healthy peer groups make such a difference, and why negative friend and sibling relationships increase the risk of children being sexually abused. That includes settings where older adolescents have “unsupervised opportunity with younger victims.”

In the absence of this kind of proactive, robust community supervision, what’s clear is that isolation of any kind appears to be quickly exploited by adult and older teenage perpetrators. Australian researchers report that sibling sexual abuse is “the most common form of intra-familial child sexual abuse”—an outcome that is more likely among “step-siblings and half-siblings,” when compared with full siblings.

Five groups of young people, in particular, experience higher levels of sexual violence: (1) girls; (2) younger children; (3) youth who identify as sexual/gender minorities; (4) children who have experienced abuse previously; and (5) children with disabilities—all of whom consistently show higher risk for sexual victimization.

In part two, we turn to patterns tied more directly to mental health, risk behaviors, substances, and the evidence on faith and religiosity—factors that can either amplify vulnerability or strengthen protection depending on how they play out in real communities.

If you or someone you love has experienced sexual assault of any kind and needs additional support in the U.S., contact the National Sexual Assault Hotline (1-800-656-HOPE)—with virtual and text-based options available. This is a confidential networking service in the U.S. that helps connect victims with local agencies that can offer therapeutic support across the country. Similar kinds of hotlines exist in many countries around the world.

About the author

Jacob Z. Hess

Jacob Hess is a staff writer and Latter-day Saint Voices editor at Deseret News and publishes longer-form pieces at PublishPeace.net. He co-authored "You're Not as Crazy as I Thought, But You're Still Wrong" and “The Power of Stillness: Mindful Living for Latter-day Saints.” He has a Ph.D. in clinical-community psychology from the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
On Key

You Might Also Like

Episode 7, “Blood Atonement”

Summary – Pyre joins Taba in talking with Prophet Onias about how Ron’s belief that he is the “One Mighty and Strong” tempted him into immoral behavior. In a flashback, Ron interrogates Matilda about the warning she gave Brenda and gets information about who helped Diana disappear. He comes up with the removal revelation, which Onias immediately rejects, but Dan pushes back, saying his doubts are just what an unbeliever would say. Ron brings out a blade he’s “consecrated” for the purpose. In the present, Pyre finds out that Ron has Diana’s address in Florida because their son sent a letter with a return address. Pyre struggles in his office to write out a testimony, presumably to give in church to fulfill his wife’s requirement or he quips to Taba he’ll “be single by fall.” Pyre is talking to Allen again when an unidentified church leader is brought in by Taba (I’m still not sure if it’s the stake president or a seventy). The church leader again pressures Pyre to wrap the case up, saying the church doesn’t need more bad press after the 1978 revelation and the “communists at the NAACP.” He then regales with Taba about how his “Lamanite” ancestors helped the Saints in the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Allen and Taba both dispute this interpretation, and the church leader leaves after brushing the dust off of his shoes against them. The detectives call the Florida police to do a welfare check on Brenda. They break into her home and find no one there, but security footage from a local store shows Diana and her kids at the grocery store four days ago. She looks behind her and is frightened by something, causing her to leave the groceries on the counter and quickly exit the store with her family.  At the police station, Jacob Lafferty, the mentally handicapped brother, wanders in and briefly causes a tense situation before turning over Dan’s journal to the police. Turns out he was the one who bolted from the cabin in episode 3. He was under orders to protect “God’s word” but heard the press conference and wants to help solve Brenda’s murder because he had a crush on her.  Pyre reads the journal, which reads like scripture, and finds out that Dan and Ron were holed up in Las Vegas earning money by gambling when they received the “revelation” that it was time to start the killing. Somehow (it’s not clear how) he knows that at that point Diana called Brenda to warn her and also called the prophet, which Pyre calls “bold as it gets for a woman.” He wants to fly out to Florida immediately to look for Diana. While he’s packing for the trip, Becca Pyre walks in. She’s disappointed he’ll be skipping out on Sunday’s testimony meeting. We find out that she’s the one who called the church leader on him. Pyre again orders her not to interfere with his investigation, pulling rank as the priesthood holder again. He claims that early church leaders saw “little girls and women as eternal servants” and that he’s afraid of what will happen to his daughters in the church. Ron’s car is located in Cheyenne and so the detectives are rerouted to there to investigate. They find the two strangers, Ricky and Chip, identified by Ma Lafferty in a previous episode. Ricky and Chip claim Dan and Ron are in Reno trying to make more money so they can finish their list, and that they stole the car to get away because they were disturbed by the murders. In flashback, we see Ron and Dan preparing for the murders at the Lafferty house, leaving Sam and Jacob behind. They stop by Robin’s home to ask for his rifle but he doesn’t have it. Ron leans in and kisses Robin on the mouth and then leaves. Now we come to the actual murder. Ron knocks on Brenda’s door, but no one answers, so they drive away. Brenda comes in from the backyard, calls Allen worried that there’s someone at the door, but no one is there. She goes out to check the mail and finds a letter from Diana which she writes a reply to. Back in the car, Dan stops in the middle of an intersection and attempts to wrest religious control back from Ron, saying that this was just a test of their faith and they should go back and try again. This time, Dan knocks on the door. Brenda answers and immediately tries to shut the door. She is overpowered by Dan who knocks her to the ground. She tries to convince Ron that this isn’t who he is and quotes scripture to them about being cast to outer darkness and testifies that she knows God will make her whole again. Ron cuts the cord from the vacuum cleaner that will be used to strangle Brenda before the camera cuts away to Dan and Ron leaving the house covered in blood. They drive to the Lows, find them not home, and miss the turn to the stake president’s home. Dan interprets this as a sign that they should stop killing and regroup, focusing on Diana so that he can keep Ron involved. Pyre and Taba are searching on the side of the highway where Ricky and Chip have told them the Laffertys discarded the weapon. Pyre worries that the men lied because they are atheists, but Taba asserts that it’s Mormons who have an allergy to facts. He shares the version of the Mountain Meadows Massacre that he was taught as a child, and eventually they find the murder weapon on the side of the road. The detectives return to Reno to search for the brothers, with Pyre trying to get details without a warrant by reminding the casino owner that “if there’s one thing our people have in common, it’s that we hate the feds crawling around our home.” They hear back from the Florida agents who

Welcome to Pride Month + Today’s Digest

Our daily rundown of the articles from around the web that we feel our readers would enjoy and appreciate. We hope to highlight the best of what’s around. Public Square Bulletin recommends: Welcome to Pride Month, Christian Carl Trueman—World Carl Trueman offers a full-throated call to oppose Pride month and its use of the rainbow symbol with the same drive that we oppose racist symbols such as Confederate flags and statues. New survey: corporations failing to respect religious and political diversity Jerry Bowyer—The Christian Post Paging Brian Grimm of the Religious Freedom and Business Foundation. Your work is desperately needed. A new report on religious and political diversity among corporations shows disappointing results, with the average score being 12 out of 100. Journalists might ask: Did fundamentalists actually win their debate with modernists? Richard Ostling—Get Religion One hundred years ago, Harry Fosdick asked if modernists or fundamentalists would win the fight for Christianity’s soul. Today many journalists seem to assume the fundamentalists won, but Richard Ostling invites them to re-examine that assumption. A Defense of Faith Statements Shirley Mullen—Heterodox Academy The easy assumption is that universities that require statements of faith to attend limit academic freedom. But a former president of one such university makes the case that by creating a community with shared beliefs, they are able to articulate a voice in a larger marketplace of ideas. The Problems of Putting off Children Nathanael Blake—Public Discourse The author had hoped to have children much younger than typical for highly educated, dual-career couples. But a combination of circumstances prevented that, leading him to have children at about the age many of his peers did. He has some thoughts about the drawbacks of this status-quo.

Subscribe To Our Weekly Newsletter

Stay up to date on the intersection of faith in the public square.

You have Successfully Subscribed!