Many Christian schools rely on written policies, annual training, and general accreditation as key safeguards for child safety. Lynne Little, a 30-year veteran of Christian education and a board member of the Evangelical Council for Abuse Prevention (ECAP), says that framework is no longer sufficient.
Photo by Christopher Ryan / Unsplash / Creative Commons
“Compliance versus competency,” Little told MinistryWatch. “We’ve got a policy in place, we do annual training — well, that’s a checkoff. But when was the last time your school formally reviewed whether those measures actually work?”
ECAP’s accreditation, built around 73 specific child-safety indicators, is designed to move institutions beyond the policy binder and the compliance checkbox toward a harder question: What actually happens when an adult sees a warning sign, or a child comes forward with a disclosure?
ECAP first released its Child Safety Standards for public review in 2021, then refined and tested them before launching its full accreditation program in January 2023.
Since then, more than 180 churches, schools, camps, and ministries have become member organizations working toward accreditation at their own pace. Ten have completed the full audit process.
Participation has gained momentum since January 2026, when ECAP introduced its Road Map to Child Safety, a step-by-step implementation guide previously available only through twice-annual cohorts or individual coaching. Accreditation is not required for membership, and ECAP acknowledges it is still too early to measure whether accreditation changes outcomes — but it points to a growing number of organizations voluntarily submitting to independent review.
The gap between policy and practice
Christian schools are not starting from scratch. Many already undergo general accreditation through organizations such as the Association of Christian Schools International (ACSI), which addresses child-safety policies and annual training. But Little, who also leads ACSI accreditation teams in the Eastern U.S., said general accreditation serves a broader purpose and may not examine an institution’s response to actual allegations as deeply as dedicated child-safety accreditation does.
Lynne Little, Ed.D.)
Annual mandatory training, she said, often becomes a video that staff watches to check a box. “That training has all of the information that we need to know,” she said. “But it’s a video that someone’s playing to check off that they’ve completed training.” The result, she said, is institutions that are compliant but not necessarily competent. That distinction matters most when a child needs help.
A 2022 civil lawsuit against Mansfield Christian School in Ohio illustrates the cost of that gap. A former student alleged the school failed to report concerns about an assistant softball coach who isolated her, gave her gifts, drove her alone to practices in violation of school policy, and eventually abused her, starting when she was 14. Multiple parents had raised concerns. The superintendent conducted an internal review and concluded there was no reasonable suspicion. According to court records, he testified that mandatory reporting “is not necessarily clearly defined” and that “if you’re going to report, you had better be 100% sure.”
The judge rejected the superintendent’s interpretation, ruling that mandatory reporters need neither certainty nor further investigation before reporting. The school had written policies addressing harassment, staff-student boundaries, board responsibility, reporting obligations, and professional conduct — but the judge added that reasonable suspicion alone triggers the duty to report. The case settled in 2024.
Mansfield is not an isolated case. At Faith Academy in Alabama, a case began when a classmate raised concerns about photos of 47-year-old teacher Jonathan Daniel Sauers on a 16-year-old student’s phone. Guidance counselor Carrie Meredith said she and other school employees questioned students and reviewed the girl’s phone but found no direct communications or explicitly inappropriate images. The girl initially denied a relationship with Sauers, and the school did not notify child-protection authorities.
The student later told police about the sexual relationship after her parents sought help when they found her abandoned car in a Walmart parking lot. Sauers was arrested and immediately fired by Faith Academy. Meredith was convicted of failure to report, and a jury again found her guilty on appeal. On June 24, a judge sentenced her to a suspended six-month sentence, six months’ probation, and a $500 fine.
In Louisiana, a former principal and assistant coach at Hamilton Christian School face unresolved charges of failure to report and obstruction after authorities alleged they knew about student sexual assaults before law enforcement became involved. The board announced an internal review to determine whether “any of our school’s policies and/or procedures were not followed” — suggesting at least some relevant policies or procedures existed.
In New Mexico, a 2025 civil lawsuit alleges that Hope Christian School administrators pressured a sixth-grader to doubt her account after she reported abuse by a teacher in 1994, required her to apologize publicly, and allowed the teacher to remain for decades. The school says it is cooperating with authorities, and no court has made a finding against it.
Though the cases are at different legal stages, they point to related gaps: policies allegedly disregarded, reporting duties misunderstood, concerns handled internally, and institutions accused of lacking adequate response systems.
“Schools and other organizations tend to think that they have to verify whether abuse has occurred,” Little said. “They start to second-guess themselves [and] overanalyze whether they have sufficient evidence. We’re not trained as investigators. We put into action the mechanism for investigation.”
That failure pattern is one that Godly Response to Abuse in the Christian Environment (GRACE) documents regularly in its work with faith-based institutions. Laura Thien, executive director of GRACE, told MinistryWatch that internal reviews are especially risky because they cannot fully account for an institution’s “blind spots, loyalties, and incentives to protect insiders.”
Laura Thien / GRACE
Thien said not every red-flag behavior that may later fit a grooming pattern necessarily rises to the level of suspected abuse requiring an immediate report to civil authorities. But institutions still need a centralized way to record those concerns. The point, she said, is not to label someone’s behavior as abusive prematurely, but to document warning signs so repeated concerns can be recognized if they become part of a larger pattern.
That is the gap ECAP says its accreditation is designed to address: not merely whether policies exist, but whether training, responsibilities, documentation, and response systems are in place before a crisis.
What ECAP’s standards require
ECAP’s five standards — Governance, Operations, Screening, Training, and Response — form an integrated system rather than a checklist. They address everything from background checks and grooming recognition to the role of a designated child-safety coordinator when a student discloses something troubling. Each addresses a distinct layer of protection. A school that passes one standard but fails another has not earned accreditation.
ECAP’s standards do not replace a mandatory reporter’s individual legal duty. They reinforce it. And it is the fifth standard, Response, that speaks most directly to the pattern documented across the Mansfield, Faith Academy, Hamilton, and Hope cases.
Thien said GRACE often encounters institutions whose reporting processes require disclosures to pass through multiple layers of authority. “An actual best practice would be for the person receiving that disclosure to be the one to make that report to a civil authority,” she said.
Standard 5 requires organizations to decide in advance how disclosures will be received, where suspected abuse will be reported, which laws will apply, and who will contact authorities, parents, legal counsel, insurers, and board leadership. Little said the point is to reduce emotional decision-making in the moment: “If we have a response plan already mapped out, we just execute.”
Under ECAP’s standards, any additional questions should be limited to determining whether reasonable suspicion exists—not conducting a full investigation. The standards prioritize law enforcement and child-protection investigations over any organizational investigation. “When in doubt,” Little told MinistryWatch, “report. Even if you’ve made a delay — delay no longer.”
Access to MinistryWatch content is free. However, we hope you will support our work with your prayers and financial gifts. To make a donation, click here.
What questions should boards, donors, and parents ask?
For board members, donors, and parents, GRACE suggests practical ways to test whether safeguards are functioning. Thien told MinistryWatch that boards should have conflict-of-interest and recusal protocols in place so personal loyalty does not compromise institutional response — and must be willing to hold administrators accountable, with or without established policies. “Proactivity will provide clarity in moments of stress,” she added.
Donors, likewise, have more leverage than they often realize. GRACE recommends asking for a direct meeting with school leadership and paying close attention to whether the response is defensive or open. Those making gifts specifically for safeguarding improvements should ask for a concrete plan: what will be done, how, and when.
One revealing test, GRACE said, is to ask a school leader to describe a time the institution had to follow its child-protection policy after an actual incident. A school that cannot answer — or responds defensively — may be revealing something about its culture. Little said parents should not feel ashamed to ask difficult questions: “If a school or ministry is doing what they need to do to protect children, they’ll have answers. They will welcome those hard questions.”
“Reporting is protection and not accusation,” Little said. Thien offered a corresponding warning: “Our policies are only as good as our willingness to follow through on them.”
MinistryWatch contacted Mansfield Christian School, Faith Academy, Hamilton Christian School, and Hope Christian School for comment. None responded before publication. This story will be updated if responses are received.
MAIN PHOTO: Photo by Christopher Ryan / Unsplash / Creative Commons
TO OUR READERS: The mission of MinistryWatch is to help Christian donors become more faithful stewards of the resources God has entrusted to them. Do you know of a story that will help us fulfill our mission, or do you want to give us feedback about this or any other story? If so, please email us at info@ministrywatch.com.