EFTA00156843.pdf

Journal d Imerp0,0071 %Owe 10111. Vol 311115-14 The Evolution of 171 The /1.0+,10 2017 Repera cM petrol-Pawn; Grooming: Concept 70000120,7001rAMPernstoont env 0O1 10 11770824760317747046 and Term swamis sigma. corr.1,0mer. ®SAGE Kenneth Lanning, MS' Abstract This discussion is not intended to be a detailed analysis of the complexities and dynamic of grooming. Instead.it will focus on the evolution of the concept and the term. More than an historical narrative. however. this evolution provides valuable insight into recognizing the diverse nature of contact sex offenses against children and important differences among types of cases. In this victimization context the term grooming generally refers to specific nonviolent techniques used by some child molesters to gain access to and control of their child victims. The techniques a child molester employs are most influenced by the relationship between the offender and the victim. Although acquaintance child molesters are sometimes violent. to avoid discovery. they tend to control their victims primarily through this seduction or grooming process. I believe the term was first used by a group of law enforcement investigators beginning in the late 1970s to describe aspects of a seduction pattern of offender behavior chat was poorly understood by most professionals. The term grooming then evolved. as language does. and spread into more common usage by law enforcement. other professionals. and then by the media and laypersons. The term grooming has pretty much supplanted seduction as the term of choice for this behavior pattern. Hopefully. understanding the evolution of the concept of grooming, the diversity of cases. the need for precise and consistent definitions, and the use of nonviolent grooming techniques to access and control victims will help interveners to better respond to and evaluate cases. 'CAC Coombe's. Fredeocksburg VA. USA Corresponding Addles, Kennel Lanning (Reared FittlAgax). CAC CansubnrA Frodababurg, VA 21407. USA. Ems* cacirodes@eardlinknet 3502-019 Page 1 of 12 EFIA_00001502 EFTA00156843 6 journal ofInterpersonal Violence 33(1) Keywords grooming. seduction. sexual exploitation of children, acquaintance molesters. compliant child victims Types of Cases This discussion is not intended to be a detailed analysis of the complexities and dynamics of grooming. Additional analysis is contained in some of the referenced publications. This article will instead focus on the evolution of the concept and the term. More than an historical narrative, however, this evolu- tion provides valuable insight into recognizing the diverse nature of contact sex offenses against children and important differences among types ofcases. As an FBI agent and consultant, I have been involved in training, research, and case consultation concerning the sexual victimization of children for more than 40 years. During this time, I have occasionally been asked how and when the term grooming came to be applied to such cases. Based on my expe- rience. the answer is related to the evolving historical recognition of different types of cases. My long-term (1973-2017) and broad-based experience (inter- action with a wide range of cases and disciplines) spans this transformation and evolution. In an effort to bring greater clarity and insight. I offer the fol- lowing relevant observations. The word grooming has obviously been around for a long time and has been applied to a wide variety of human behaviors and activities. In this vic- timization context, the term grooming generally refers to specific techniques used by some child molesters to gain access to and control of their child victims. The techniques a child molester employs are most influenced by the relationship between the offender and the victim. When I first began to study sex crimes as an FBI agent in 1973, the sexual victimization of children centered on cases perpetrated by strangers (i.e., stranger danger). Such cases had been the focus of prevention, awareness, and investigative efforts for a long time. The concept of grooming had little application to such cases. Strangers most often obtained and maintained access and control of victims by the use of force or threats of force. The term lure is often used to describe the short-term control mechanism commonly employed by these stereotypical child molesters to initially get physically close to their victims. Such lures are not, as some believe, a form of groom- ing. Concern over such stranger cases continues today, especially those involving missing and abducted children. Around the late 1970s, there was growing awareness and emphasis placed on cases perpetrated by family members (i.e., sexual abuse ofchildren). Such 3502-019 Page 2 of 12 EFTA_00001503 EFTA00156844 Lanning 7 intrafamilial cases became the focus of study and publications by early experts and scholars in the field (e.g.. Nicholas Groth, Susan Sgroi, Roland Summit, Jon Conte, David Finkelhor. etc.). Intrafamilial cases can in theory involve the concept ofgrooming as a control mechanism but such behavior is hard to clearly identify as such because most parents normally and regularly engage in the most commonly used indicators of grooming (e.g.. attention, affection, gifts. money, privileges). The term coercion is often used to describe the control mechanism generally used in these intrafamilial cases. I have no recollection of the term grooming being applied to the control dynamics of intrafamilial cases, during this growing recognition in the 1970s and early 1980s. The concept and use of the term grooming gradually emerged during the 1980s with the growing recognition of cases perpetrated by extrafamil- ial acquaintance offenders (i.e., sexual exploitation of children). Between 1975 and 1985, law enforcement in the United States became increasingly aware of acquaintance offenders and the special investigative challenges they presented. As a large department, in 1977 the Los Angeles (California) Police Department (LAPD) was even able to establish a specialized unit, the Sexual!), Exploited Child Unit, to specifically investigate cases in which offenders from outside their family who were not strangers (i.e., acquaintances) sexually victimized children. Several other law enforce- ment agencies around the country soon learned from and copied the spe- cialized work of this unit. With this growing awareness of acquaintance offenders came increased realization that some of them would gravitate to the target rich environment of youth-serving organizations (Lanning & Dietz. 2014). A few insightful professionals had recognized the problem of acquaintance child molesters even earlier. Although not using the term the 1939 Boys' Club handbook even discussed the need for their leaders to be "on guard" for certain behav- iors by their volunteers that today would be considered part of the grooming process (Atkinson. 1939). In August 1980, the Illinois Legislative Investigating Commission submit- ted a report about the sexual exploitation of children to the Illinois General Assembly. This report states, Most of the child molesters whom we encountered during our investigation follow cenain patterns. Frequently, these individuals will look for children involved in legitimate groups—Boy Scouts. summer camps. the BigBrothers— and the molesters will become involved in these groups themselves. thus providing freer aceess to a wide range of children. (Illinois Legislative Investigating Commission. 1980. p. 286) 3502-019 Page 3 of 12 EFTA_00001504 EFTA00156845 8 Journal ofInterpersonal Violence 33(l) In 1982, the Big Brothers/Big Sisters of America published a monograph about child sexual abuse, addressing the issue of child molesters becoming involved in their organization (Wolf, 1982). In 1983. forensic psychiatrist Park E. Dietz observed, "For every paraphilia, there is some job or hobby that provides exposure to the preferred imagery. and paraphiliacs selectively gravitate to these activities as witnessed by the periodic scandals about pedo- philes working with youngsters- (Dietz, 1983, p. 1490). In January 1984, the FBILaw Enforcement Bulletin published a special issue about "Pedophilia." In this issue, two articles specifically addressed the sexual exploitation of children and discussed the issue of offenders gaining access to victims through their occupation or vocation (Lanning. 2010). As this awareness grew, the LAPD Sexually Exploited Child Unit and other investigators began using the term seduction to describe the nonviolent way in which such acquaintance offenders typically gained access to and control of their child victims. Instead of force, children were manipulated through the most effective combination of attention, affection, kindness. gifts, alcohol, drugs. money. and privileges. The two previously mentioned articles in the January 1984 FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin specifically described offenders gaining control of their victims through well-planned seduction and children being seduced by games, gifts. and trips (Goldstein, 1984; Lanning & Burgess, 1984). During the mid-1980s, the FBI allowed me in my assignment at the Behavioral Science Unit to bring together at several seminars at the FBI Academy in Quantico, VA, most of the few investigators then specializing in such extrafamilial sexual exploitation of children cases. At these gatherings, the concepts of seduction and grooming were increasingly discussed and for- malized. The emerging law enforcement experts in this area increasingly dis- seminated these concepts through networking and training presentations at seminars and conferences around the country. They were not likely, however, to write books and journal articles on the topic. In 1982, Lloyd Martin, a detective sergeant formerly assigned to the LAPD's Sexually Exploited Child Unit, did co-author a book focusing on sexual exploitation of children cases (Martin & Haddad, 1982). In that, he describes in great detail and with many case examples the seduction process as used by acquaintance molesters. He did not, however, specifically label the process with the term. In spite of this new insight into its application to these cases, this tech- nique was really no great mystery. These offenders essentially seduced chil- dren much the same way as adults seduce one another. Between two adults or two teenagers, it might be considered part of dating. Use of these nonviolent techniques increased the likelihood of cooperation of and continued access to the victim and, very important to the offender, decreased the likelihood of 3502-019 Page 4 of 12 EFTA_00001505 EFTA00156846 Laming 9 disclosure even of a nonfamily offender whose identity is well known to the victim. Use of violence would increase the likelihood of early discovery and disclosure of such acquaintance offenders (Lanning, 2010). Seduction Versus Grooming Although acquaintance child molesters arc sometimes violent, to avoid dis- covery, they tend to control their victims primarily through this seduction or grooming process. In early training (e.g., Advanced Seminar on Sexual Exploitation of Children, 1987; Dallas Child Sexual Exploitation Seminar, 1987; National Law Enforcement Seminar on Sexual Exploitation of Children, 1983; Protecting Our Children: The Fight Against Molestation: A National Symposium, 1984; Sexual Exploitation of Children Seminar, 1985) and publications (e.g., Campagna & Poffenberger, 1988; Frost & Seng, 1986; Goldstein, 1984. 1987; Lanning. 1986; Lanning & Burgess, 1984) on the sexual exploitation of children. the term seduction was used most often to refer to this particular access and control technique. It is important to recog- nize that at this time it was understanding of the technique and process and not a specific name or label that was most important. In a 1984 article, Jon Conte pointed out that in most sexual abuse of chil- dren cases, except those involving abuse by a stranger, "the perpetrator involves children in sexual abuse through a grooming process in which a combination of kindness, attention, material enticement, special privilege, and coercion am expertly applied." Conte footnoted this process description to a 1979 book written by Nicholas Groth. In his 1979 book, however, Groth clearly described what has become known as the grooming process but he did not specially use the term grooming to name it. Therefore, it appears Groth provided the first published description of a grooming process although Conte provided the first published naming of the process as grooming (Conte, 1984, p. 558: Groth & Birnbaum. 1979). Today this technique is mom commonly referred to as grooming, but his- torically the process was more often called seduction. Although some people see a subtle distinction, I view the two terms as essentially the same. I actu- ally prefer the term seduction because I believe it is more clearly known and plainly understood (Lanning, 2010). Considering this evolution, determining when the term seduction was first used to refer to the process would seem to be just as noteworthy as when the term grooming was first used and is there- fore being discussed. When I started developing my own typology of child molesters in the early 1980s, one significant pattern of behavior I identified involved what I termed the "Seduction Type" preferential child molester. I first described the 3502-019 Page 5 of 12 EFTA_00001506 EFTA00156847 10 journal ofInterpersonal Violence 33(1) seduction process associated with this type of offender in training presenta- tions I was increasingly giving. In 1985, the FBI disseminated a free mono- graph I authored in which I set forth this process in writing (Lanning, 1985). Eventually, five editions of my typology were published and widely dissemi- nated by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC; Lanning, 1986. 1987, 1992, 2001, 2010). Each with expanding explanations and analysis. literally hundreds of thousands of copies of my various publica- tions discussing these offenders and their use of the seduction process were disseminated in print and online from 1985 to 2017. During the 1980s. I also began using the term grooming in my many pre- sentations and on my accompanying 35-mm word slides (pre-PowerPoint) to describe this seduction process. I believe I first used the term in writing in a 1989 NCMEC publication titled Child Sex Rings: A Behavioral Analysis (Lanning, 1989). In describing the "Seduction Process." I stated, 'Some molesters may even start grooming a potential victim long before the child has reached his age preference." As seen from this context, at this time I con- sidered grooming to be simply a descriptive part of the overall seduction process. I did not (and still do not prefer to) use it as the label or name of the process itself as so many do today. Eventually. I started using the terms seduction and grooming together and interchangeably in my presentations and publications. In my opinion and based on my interactions in this area since 1973. it would be almost impossible to identify the specific person who first used the term grooming as it is applied today in this context I believe it was first used by a group of law enforcement investigators beginning in the late 1970s to describe aspects of a seduction pattern of offender behavior that was poorly understood by most professionals. The term grooming then evolved, as lan- guage does, and spread into mom common usage by law enforcement, other professionals, and then by the media and laypersons. As the term grooming became increasingly popular, it eventually found its way into mom publica- tions starting in the 1990s (e.g., Castillo, 1998; Leberg. 1997; van Dam, 2006). It has pretty much supplanted seduction as the term of choke for this behavior pattern. The concept of grooming has also been similarly and appropriately applied to many of the growing numbers ofmore recent online child solicita- tion cases. However, possible application of the term to the methods used by "pimps" to recruit and control their child victims in sex trafficking cases (e.g., child prostitution) must be viewed in the light of some significant dis- tinctions. The primary intended purpose of the recruitment and control by traffickers is not for their own sexual gratification but that of potential cus- tomers. In addition, such traffickers are far more likely to progressively 3502-019 Page 6 of 12 EFTA_00001507 EFTA00156848 Loaning II gravitate to using threats and violence as their primary control technique. The grooming is used more as a short-term lure than a long-term seduction technique. The term grooming has also increasingly been used in expert testimony in criminal and civil cases to educate the court concerning certain offender behaviors and seemingly puzzling victim behaviors (e.g., compliance, prior denial, delayed disclosure); see United States v. Harvard, 2004) and State v. Torres (2009). Some experts have tried to use the -Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome" developed by Dr. Roland Summit in the early 1980s as the basis for such grooming testimony (Summit. 1983). This syn- drome was intended to help explain certain patterns of behavior exhibited by child victims of sexual abuse. Because it originated from the study of only intrafamilial cases, however, it has limited, if any. application to extrafamilial sexual exploitation cases and the current concept of grooming. In addition, referring to basic human responses to attention and affection as some kind of a "syndrome" or "brain washing" complicates and confuses the issue. Definitions Although increasingly used, there is still much confusion and disagreement over the precise meaning of the term grooming. It does not have one official, legal, mental health, or even lay definition. Anyone using the term, therefore, should clearly define it and consistently use their definition. Especially prob- lematic for a clear understanding of communication are common terms with a wide range of possible definitions—all correct but often different (Lanning, 2010). The term grooming has become one of these terms. To make this prob- lem even worse, there is essentially no real difference between the definitions of the terms seduction and grooming. This is what I refer to as confusion cre- ated by calling the same thing by different names or different things by the same (Lanning. 2010). Often what seems to be disagreement (e.g., "alterna- tive facts") is actually confusion over precise definitions. I define grooming/seduction as the use of nonviolent techniques by one person to gain sexual access to and control over potential and actual child victims. The grooming or seduction process usually consists of identifying preferred or acceptable child targets, gathering information about interests and vulnerabilities, gaining access (i.e.. sports. religion, education, online computer), filling emotional and physical needs, lowering inhibitions, and gaining and maintaining control (i.e., bonding, competition. challenges, peer pressure. sympathy) (Lanning, 2010). Use of these techniques requires ongo- ing access, time. interpersonal skill and the offender being. or at least per- ceived as. a nice guy. To assist with their access to and control of children, 3502-019 Page 7 of 12 EFTA_00001508 EFTA00156849 12 Journal ofInterpersonal Violence 33(1) offenders often use related grooming techniques with parents. guardians, caretakers, and youth-serving organizations. The precise nature of the grooming/seduction process used is partially dependent on the developmental stages, needs, and specific vulnerabilities of the targeted child victims and the nature of the relationship with the offender (Lanning & Dietz, 2014). However, all children arc to varying degrees vulnerable and the significance of the process applies to all child victims, not just those who am somehow innocent or from poor or from dysfunctional families. If the techniques work, the resulting compliance of the child victims is often improperly interpreted by some as constituting consent and a lack of true victimization (Laming. 2005). Age of consent can vary depending on the type of sexual activity and individuals involved. There are legal variations in the age at which a child can consent to engage in sexual activity with whom, appear in sexually explicit visual images, get married, or leave home to have sex with an unrelated adult without parental permission. An acquaintance child molester may wind up abducting or not returning a child because he wants or needs the child all to himself away from a judgmental society. Such missing children often voluntarily go with the offender. Abducting or running away with a child with whom you can be linked is high-risk criminal behavior. Based on my observations and experience (e.g.. interactions in consulting on thousands of cases, requests for my education testimony, the responses I have gotten when I have discussed or written about compliant child victims, and the common emphasis on sexually violent predators). it is clear to me that many child advocates and society seem to have a need to believe all child victims are characteristically threatened or forced into any sexual activity. This can result in a confirmation bias that is more about exactly how the sexual victimization of the child occurred than an overall belief that victim- ization did occur. They frequently do not understand the diversity of cases and have a hard time reconciling the concept of grooming with their concept of violence. They often define and limit grooming to make cases fit their perception of the sexual victimization of children. Grooming is an explana- tion to help understand the reasonable behavior of some child victims. It is not an excuse to help maintain an unreasonable stereotype of all child vic- tims. The most important thing is to identify and understand the behavior involved and recognize these children are real victims of crime. In addition, grooming may be the most common reason children are compliant but not the only reason. As I define the terms. grooming/seduction and violence arc generally incompatible. If you define violent crime as involving the use of force or threats of force to access and control victims, many cases of sexual 3502-019 Page 8 of 12 EFTA_00001509 EFTA00156850 Laming 13 victimization of children am not violent. Children can be considered victims under the law because of their developmental immaturity and age. The law does not require threats, force, incapacitation. or violence in all cases. It makes little sense to control a child for an extended time period through grooming if you are going to eventually just drug or force the child into sex- ual activity. Offenders proficient in grooming/seducing their victims, typi- cally use threats and physical violence only as a last resort to avoid imminent disclosure or to prevent a victim from leaving before they are ready to termi- nate the relationship. Although it is possible to manipulate and control child victims through the infliction of nonviolent stress, pressure. and suffering. I generally do not consider such behavior to constitute grooming/seduction (Lanning, 2010). Some grooming/seduction activities (e.g., affection, touching, hugging. massaging. etc.) can also provide sexual gratification for the offender and may even constitute sex offenses by themselves. Grooming activity is not always just a prelude to sex but can be sex. The goal of the grooming is not always to eventually engage in sexual intercourse with a child. Some offend- ers are content with or even prefer sexual gratification from these less obvi- ous types of behavior (e.g., paraphilias). An important aspect in many cases is the implication of the grooming process in considering the appropriate punishment of offenders using it and the possible culpability of child victims accessed and controlled by it (Lanning, 2010). What victim behavior does grooming explain and what vic- tim behavior does it excuse? Cases involving grooming are often viewed as lesser offenses. In my experience, many of the most persistent and prolific (and therefore dangerous) sex offenders primarily groom and seduce their child victims and rarely use violence. For many youth-serving organizations, most problematic is the difficulty in distinguishing grooming from mentoring (Lanning & Dietz, 2014). The results of the process am often easier to iden- tify as grooming than the process itself. Summary In summary, knowledge of the evolution of the term and concept ofgrooming is thought-provoking and provides insight into society's historical recogni- tion of the sexual victimization of children. More importantly, understanding of it helps to reinforce the recognition of important variations in types of cases. The process of grooming should be objectively defined, and appropri- ately applied, and not used merely as a means to maintain emotional stereo- types about the nature of the sexual victimization of children. Understanding of the concepts of grooming and compliance must be applied to all child 3502-019 Page 9 of 12 EFTA_00001510 EFTA00156851 14 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 33(I) victims and not just those who fit some preconceived stereotype of inno- cence. Whether children come from a "good" or dysfunctional home and do or do not get attention and affection at home should not be the determining factors in accepting their vulnerability to grooming/seduction. Child victims cannot be held to idealistic and superhuman standards of behavior. The varying degrees of cooperation by some children do not mean they are not victims. A child's response to grooming must be viewed as an understandable human characteristic and addressed when developing investi- gative and prevention strategies. Children can be considered victims of sex crimes not only because they may have been forced, groomed, manipulated, brainwashed. or come from poor and dysfunctional families, but also simply because of their age. I have no simple solutions for the concerns being discussed. Hopefully, understanding the evolution of the concept of grooming, the diversity of cases, the need for precise and consistent definitions, and the use of nonvio- lent grooming techniques to access and control victims will help interveners to better respond to and evaluate cases. Declaration of Conflicting Interests The authotts) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research. authorship. and/or publication of this anicle. Funding The author(s) received no financial support for the research. authorship. andfor publi- cation of this article. References Advanced Seminar on Sexual Exploitation of Children (1987, February 9-13). Sponsored by the Federal Bureau ofInvestigation. at the Xerox Training Center, Leesburg, Virginia. Atkinson. R. K. (1939). The bo.n' club. New York. NY: Association Press. Cantpagna, D. S.. & Poffenbergcr. D. L. (1988). The .venial trafficking in children. Dover. MA: Auburn House. Castillo, IL (1998). Not with my child. Carson City. NV: United Youth Security. Conte.1. R. (1984). The justice system and sexual abuse of children. Social Service Review, 58,556568. Dallas Child Sexual Exploitation Seminar(1987. September 21-23). Sponsored by the Dallas. Texas Police Department, at the Dallas PD. Dallas. Texas. Dietz. P. E. (1983). Scx offenses: Behavioral aspects. In S. H. Kadish (Eds.). Encyclopedia of crime and Justice (pp. 1485-1493). New York. NY: Free Press. 3502-019 Page 10 of 12 EFTA_00001511 EFTA00156852 tanning IS Frost. T. M.. & Seng. M. J. (Eds.). (1986). Sexual exploitation ofthe child. Chicago. IL: Center for Urban Policy. Loyola University. Goldstein. S. L. (1984). Investigating child sexual exploitation: Law enforcement's role. FBILaw Enforcement Bulletin. 53.22-31. Goldstein. S. L. (1987). The sexual exploitation ofchildren. New York. NY: Elsevier Science. Groth. A. N.. & Bimbaum. H. 1. (1979). Men who rape: The psnhology of the offender.New York. NY: Plenum Press. Illinois Legislative Investigating Commission. (1980. August). Sexual exploitation of children. Chicago. IL: Author. tanning. K. V. (1985). Child molecters A behavioral analysis. Quantico. VA: US. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation. tanning. K. V. (1986). Child molesters: A behavioral analysis. Alexandria, VA: National Center for Missing & Exploited Children. tanning. K. V. (1987). Childmolesters. A behavioral analysts (2nd ed.). Alexandria. VA: National Center for Missing & Exploited Children. tanning. K. V. (1989). Child sex rings: A behavioral analysis. Alexandria. VA: National Center for Missing & Exploited Children. Canning, K. V. (1992). Childmolesters: A behavioral analysis (3rd ed.). Alexandria. VA: National Center for Missing & Exploited Children. Canning, K. V. (2001). Childmolesters. A behavioral analysis (4th ed.). Alexandria. VA: National Center for Missing & Exploited Children. Canning, K. V. (2005). Compliant child victim: Confronting an uncomfonable reality. In E. Quayle & M. Taylor (Eds.). Viewing childpornography on the Internet (pp. 49-60). Dorset. UK: Russell House. Canning, K. V. (2010). Childmolesters: A behavioral analysis (5th ed.). Alexandria. VA: National Center for Missing & Exploited Children. tanning. K. V., & Burgess. A. W. (1984). Child pornography and sex rings. FBILaw Enforcement Bulletin. 53. 10-16. tanning. K. V.. & Dietz. P. E. (2014). Acquaintance child molesters and youth-serv- ing organizations. Journal ofInterpersonal Violence. 29. 1-24. teberg. E. (1997). Understanding childmolesters. Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage. Manin. L.. & Haddad. J. (1982). We have a secret. Newport Beach. CA: Crown Summit Books. National Law Enforcement Seminar on Sexual Exploitation of Children. (1983. May 22-27). Sponsored by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. at the FBI Academy. Quantico. Virginia. Protecting Our Children: The Fight Against Molestation: A National Symposium. (1984). Washington. DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Sexual Exploitation of Children Seminar (1985. September 16-20). Sponsored by the Federal Bureau ofInvestigation. at the FBI Academy. Quantico. Virginia. State v. Torres. 999 So. 2d 1077 (2009). Summit. R. C. (1983). The child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome. ChildAbuse & Neglect. 7, 177-192. 3502-019 Page 11 of 12 EFTA_00001512 EFTA00156853 16 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 33(l) United States v. Hayward, 359 F. 3d 631 (3rd Cir. 2004). van Dam, C. (2006). The socially skilled child molester: Differentiating the guilty from thefalsely accused. Binghamton. NY: The Haworth Pas Wolf. D. L. (1982). Child sexual abuse. Clayton. MO: Big Brothers Big Sisters of America. Author Biography Kenneth Loaning. MS. is a consultant in the area of crimes against children. He was a special agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for more than 30 years and was assigned to the FBI Behavioral Science Unit at the FBI Academy for 20 of those years. Ile is the 1990 recipient of the Jefferson Award for Research from the University of Virginia. the 1996 recipient of the Outstanding Professional Award from the American Professional Society on the Abuse ofChildren. the 1997 recipient of the FBI Director's Annual Award for Special Achievement for his career accom- plishments in connection with missing and exploited children, and the 2009 recipient of the Lifetime Achievement Award for Outstanding Service from the National Children's Advocacy Center. He has lectured before and trained thousands of law enforcement officers, prosecutors, social workers, mental health and medical person- nel. judgs and other professionals. 3502-019 Page 12 of 12 EFTA_00001513 EFTA00156854