JW Insider

I think you have a pretty good sense of the continuing effect based on specific examples, although there are others, too. Unfortunately an effect that might be more pervasive, but less tangible, is an overall sense of trustworthiness of spiritual direction. This one thing shouldn't be a big factor, but I wonder if this specific issue, for example, hasn't weighed on the minds of even the current GB, who have only recently decided to admit explicitly that the spiritual food and decisions they make are sometimes rotten or wrong, respectively, or that they might even depend on others for spiritual direction. The creation of too rigid a legalistic hierarchy produces:
followers who won't think enough for themselves, on the one hand, and could also tend to produce those who believe that 100% conformity to Jehovah's requirements is not all that important, from another perspective. (Based on this sense that it must not have mattered that much to Jehovah if all marriages are clean in his eyes, as long as the current incorrect rules of the WTS were followed at the time.) I can't guess at the number of "cases," of course, but I know of one specific case I dealt with in my previous congregation, and one in my current. I can't extrapolate from a couple of anecdotal examples, but I can't imagine that I know of the only two examples in the whole world, either. What if there is one in every congregation? What if the examples that come to the surface are only a small representation of the examples that never come to the surface?
Referring more to the second bullet point above, I can speak to a noticeable lack of interest in the spiritual direction received among a large swath of active Witnesses that I don't recall as much in times past. Perhaps it's just my projected nostalgia speaking here, though. I think you, for example, are likely one of those who take a stronger interest in the details of each of our doctrines -- sometimes even their historical development, up to a point. I see very little of that now.  In some ways I see it being even more discouraged. Taking an interest in commenting upon our doctrines, except with catechism-style answers to canned questions, is looked down upon -- even as if to say: "How dare anyone have the presumptuousness to comment upon doctrines that are already spelled out for us." Yet, that attitude of speaking up out of an overriding interest in our spiritual relationship with Jehovah, is no doubt what pushed the correction in thinking on this very subject in the original post.

This is really awful. I didn't want to just ignore this. It's all the more tragic for you, it evidently being so close to home, and so recent. I don't want to trivialize it by mixing the topic of drug addiction into a conversation about child abuse statistics, but you already know that this is a huge problem in parts of the world, and we can be thankful for the protections among Jehovah's people that leave us relatively immune from so many of such problems.  
I see your point, and in spite of the interpretation people have imputed onto this conversation, I don't agree that our problem with child abuse is nearly as bad as is generally found on the outside. I have only disagreed with using a flawed set of numbers and apple-and-orange ratio comparisons to make the claim. And I am concerned that after being associated (in several major legal systems) with a flawed process, we might appear to be defending the flawed process. Our numbers may actually be 10 times better, or 6 times better, but we attract unnecessary negative attention by appearing to defend a process that has been used in the way it has, especially in our own organization's recent history.
My wife started a Bible study with a woman, now a sister, who had a drug abuse problem, not an addiction problem. I was asked to study with this woman's brother, who did have an on-and-off drug addiction problem. He was getting treatment, but it was a long process for him and he never managed to get to a point where he thought he was ready for baptism. If he had been baptized, he might have still struggled. But I would agree with calling the organization a "lifeline" for this type of person. Learning to rely on Jehovah to help overcome major issues with wrong desires becomes a positive habit in itself. I think he had a desire to get to a point where he could feel proud of his life, feel a purpose in life, and to some extent feel that he had a social structure and network to fall back upon in time of need. Part of what held him back, he said, is that he didn't feel worthy of association with a group of people who appeared to be ready to love him as he is and take him in as a friend. It's something I've seen in the prison work, too. Even after a baptism, some prisoners don't feel worthy of associating with the class of person that Witnesses represent to them. (For cases like this, I like the experiences such as the brother on the monthly broadcast a few months back who had been a true-to-life criminal, but speaks with joy and obvious acceptance of his past, present and future.)
Even in the context of writing a book that could use a "study" or two for more credibility, I still don't see why you are looking for a specific number. The point is that we have made progress beyond most religions on most issues, but we always look to use the Bible as our guiding set of principles. Sometimes this makes us look a bit backward, but we stand on our record in dealing with all the issues that plague the world today. We don't dig our heels in to hang onto traditional ways of doing things, but we look to the Bible for the wisdom and counsel to meet all challenges, old and new.

I am not even sure what you think I have a problem with. But it doesn't matter. Often I do not know where you are coming from. I don't have to. On the list of seven things that God hates, that as by  miracle, expands to eight, is "any one stirring up contentions among brothers." I will not do it. And I don't think you are doing it with me, unless you think that I am not a brother. 
Maybe some of our miscommunication lies in the fact you have battled the villians in many nasty places, and I have not - and for over a longer period of time.  You have a terminology of internet lore unfamiliar to me. (Space Merchant is even more so that way)  I have been online for most of 12 years, but until recently I did not stray from my own platform, where I would take comments from opposers if they wished to make any, but I did not let them hijack the site.
About a year ago, as an experiment, I briefly forayed into an apostate site, being a very bad boy, but once they discovered I had no plans to defect, they were so unfailingly nasty that I soon withdrew. They were effusive in their warm welcome until they discovered I planned to stay where I was. 
Because I am playful maybe you think I am sometimes attacking you. I am not. Ever. If I say you are "abrasive," as I have, it is not said to put you down. It is just playful. Come now, would you have anyone believe here that you are not? You would probably be well-served to attend to that to the extent you can, just as I would be well-served to speak with less hyperbole, because it does get misunderstood. Not that I will do it. Not that you will do it. But I will nudge in the proper direction. You should too.
Otherwise, to the extent that you believe it about me, we are brothers. We must not fight. But if you do not believe I am a brother - well, I guess that's okay. It is not exactly the Kingdom Hall here, is it?

This is really awful. I didn't want to just ignore this. It's all the more tragic for you, it evidently being so close to home, and so recent. I don't want to trivialize it by mixing the topic of drug addiction into a conversation about child abuse statistics, but you already know that this is a huge problem in parts of the world, and we can be thankful for the protections among Jehovah's people that leave us relatively immune from so many of such problems.  
I see your point, and in spite of the interpretation people have imputed onto this conversation, I don't agree that our problem with child abuse is nearly as bad as is generally found on the outside. I have only disagreed with using a flawed set of numbers and apple-and-orange ratio comparisons to make the claim. And I am concerned that after being associated (in several major legal systems) with a flawed process, we might appear to be defending the flawed process. Our numbers may actually be 10 times better, or 6 times better, but we attract unnecessary negative attention by appearing to defend a process that has been used in the way it has, especially in our own organization's recent history.
My wife started a Bible study with a woman, now a sister, who had a drug abuse problem, not an addiction problem. I was asked to study with this woman's brother, who did have an on-and-off drug addiction problem. He was getting treatment, but it was a long process for him and he never managed to get to a point where he thought he was ready for baptism. If he had been baptized, he might have still struggled. But I would agree with calling the organization a "lifeline" for this type of person. Learning to rely on Jehovah to help overcome major issues with wrong desires becomes a positive habit in itself. I think he had a desire to get to a point where he could feel proud of his life, feel a purpose in life, and to some extent feel that he had a social structure and network to fall back upon in time of need. Part of what held him back, he said, is that he didn't feel worthy of association with a group of people who appeared to be ready to love him as he is and take him in as a friend. It's something I've seen in the prison work, too. Even after a baptism, some prisoners don't feel worthy of associating with the class of person that Witnesses represent to them. (For cases like this, I like the experiences such as the brother on the monthly broadcast a few months back who had been a true-to-life criminal, but speaks with joy and obvious acceptance of his past, present and future.)
Even in the context of writing a book that could use a "study" or two for more credibility, I still don't see why you are looking for a specific number. The point is that we have made progress beyond most religions on most issues, but we always look to use the Bible as our guiding set of principles. Sometimes this makes us look a bit backward, but we stand on our record in dealing with all the issues that plague the world today. We don't dig our heels in to hang onto traditional ways of doing things, but we look to the Bible for the wisdom and counsel to meet all challenges, old and new.

"We live in a world of buzzwords and catchphrases, few of which will endure rigorous shaking. It is enough to employ our ‘six times better’ figure as a starting bid and concede that further bids might alter the picture."
The handful of people on this forum have come to live and breathe pedophile facts and counter-facts, but most of our people know almost nothing about it. They will say "Look, I am not a pervert. I don't know any perverts. I don't like perverts. I don't want to know about perverts. I think perverts are disgusting. And yet now I am called upon to be a pervert expert." It is all a huge diversion from the heart of the truth. Give them a quick retort so that they are not caught as a deer between the headlights. They can bring themselves up to speed if they see fit, as can their detractors. JohnB was dumbfounded that this issue was not on the top of everyone's aware list. I explained that it was because they have thousands of atrocities to choose from. A quick answer is enough to move everyone along.
It is not untrue as far as it goes. It simply does not address all the complications. it is like the quick answer we give our student to address a question that he has yet to build a foundation for understanding it. It is not wrong for him to ask it, and if he is persistent, we devote however much time it takes. But usually a simple answer suffices. It is even like the quick answer we give our 8 year old about the facts of life.
The analogy is not perfect. You needn't point that out. Furthermore, I may rethink it but for now I am okay with it. It is not the centerpiece of the chapter by any means. It does not represent a call-to-arms cry. I also understand that in playing devil's advocate as you do, you risk being seen as the devil. I think I know where you are coming from and I thank you for your condolances about the local tragedy.
Not only do I agree with everything here, but it could almost be the Foreword for Part II of the book. I think, should you read it, you will be satisfied I do not over-rely on a number or encourage anyone else to do so.

Okay. I did and I was wrong.
It was me who first put the quotes around "study" thus acknowleging it was not really a study, but simply an indicator, a fact, that could be built upon. Maybe it was wrong of me to do that, but we are a culture that loves to say it acts upon studies, and I saw no reason not to give it that status for purposes of discussion.
I also said when I introduced the "study" into this thread that it "seemingly shows" a child is ten times safer in the JW environment. I dropped that qualifier in later reiterations because I was dealing with someone who seemingly accepted the 10 times better as fact and yet it made no difference to him. I took this as an indication that he had lost his senses and I repeated the "10 times better" "fact" thinking that it would eventually penetrate, but it never did. I think a million times better would not have cut it. If there was even a speck of dirt, it justified to him a flamethrower.
 
This is the fact that was missed. Updating a year as you have done, the 355,925 notifications stem from just 225,487 children, and so it is the latter number that should be used in the calculation. (these figures are from just under the heading: "How many notifications are made to child protection services in Australia each year?" and they appear before the charts you selected from.
The pie chart further down shows that, for whatever reason, the percentage of abuse cases that is sexual is no longer 13%, but 12% 
Thus 12% of 225,487 eqauls 27,058 notifications of child sexual abuse - out of a total Australian population of 24, 000,000.
The figures to be used for comparative purposes are: 
Greater Australia:  27,058   /   24,000,000   -  which represents 11.27%
vs
Jehovah's Witnesses in Australia:  12   /   67,418   -   which represents 1.78%
Thus, the Witness organization does not prevent child sexual abuse at a rate 10 times greater than all Australia. It prevents it at a rate of 6.3 times greater than all Australia.
You have lost me in some of your calculations, but it appears that you have qualified those notifications from all-Australia, but not the ones from the Witnesses. Some of their notifications turn out to be unsubstantiated, but you seem to assume that every one of ours are. I see no reason for that assumption. You can only compare like to like, not their 'processed' notifications to our 'unprocessed' ones.
For that matter, there is no guarantee that each of our notifications stems from a different child. They don't in all-Australia. Maybe not with us as well.  If even two of them stemmed from the same child, that would skew the numbers hugely in our favor. 
Is it valid to relate that, per reported figures, children would appear to be 6.3 times safer in a Witness environment? Or should they be left to suppose that it is even-steven, or even worse, for fear they may otherwise get complacent about fixing what remains?
I will give you an experience and admittedly, I am going borderline hysterics myself, like many who have contributed to this topic. Just recently a childhood friend of my son died. He left the truth as a teenager. He subsequently developed heavy addiction problems. But for the last three months he had been clean and was once again attending meetings. His mother went to pick him up on the night of the Memorial - last night. He had apparantly relapsed and overdosed. He was dead.
Now, I know very well that not everyone who leaves the truth developes addiction problems. And I also know that not everyone who recovers does so by becoming a Jehovah's Witness. But I  know too that opioid addiction has a 90% recidism rate. So it would have been a very fine thing, even a lifeline, had he continued coming to meetings where he could have gathered strength. And had he done that, I would not be thrilled at someone meeting him at the door and saying: "You know, we have child sexual abuse here just as much as where you come from. it might even be worse."
No. I want them to say 'Because we make a real effort to resist child sexual abuse and have good governance to that effect, we kick it 6.3 times better than the world. And we kick opioid abuse 20 times better. And whatever wretched problem you have encountered, we kick that multiple times better as well. I guarantee that he would not have said: "Yeah, but you're not perfect, are you?"
 
 
 
 

What I want to do is use the 10 times better figure. But @JW Insider has shown me I cannot even use the 6 times better figure without severe qualification, and he would have me drop it altogether. I will not do that, but I will put a real muzzle on it. For all I know, he did it specifically as a favor to me, so that I would not go public with stats that quickly fall apart. No matter his motive. I am grateful to him.
I can call the other side ignorant. I can assert that they do not know law and until they do they ought to keep their mouths shut. But I will not win them over that way, even if what I say is true. If I write them off as hopeless and drop down a notch to giving my brothers a tool they can use to ward off the villains, I do not do them any favors if I give them one that can be ripped to shreds.
I wonder how the following will fly as part of the Pedophile chapter, towards the end:
There is only so far you can go with the ‘6 times better’ figure. It should not be relied upon as dogma. It is processed notifications into varying levels of severity on one side vs unprocessed notifications on the other. It is  most likely that notifications from the Witness camp will break down similarly to stats overall, but this cannot be guaranteed. Small variations alter the results dramatically and large variations make it meaningless.  It is good only for a ballpark figure - the best that can be hoped for given that the ones who should have put their talents to work in ascertaining truth chose instead to bury theirs in the ground. It will have to do for now. Skewed results from data clarification doesn’t have to work against Witnesses. It could work in their favor. If notifications in the greater Australian figures outnumbered victims, that could be true in the Witness figures as well. Maybe even all 17 reports stem from a single rotter like that fellow in San Diego. Kneecap that scoundrel and we are perfect. We live in a world of buzzwords and catchphrases, few of which will endure rigorous shaking. It is enough to employ our ‘six times better’ figure as a starting bid and concede that further bids might alter the picture.
Now I must brace myself for a lecture from Captain Truth, who, when he is not quoting the founding fathers who agree with Trump, is drawing up imbecile cartoons to embarrass the brothers. 
I respect this. I truly do. The only caveat I will add is that it is a little like killing a fly. 50 will come to the funeral. I tried something similar to this with AlanF. But he remained nasty throughout, impervious to all my submissions, and in the end the Librarian suggested that I should knock it off as it was getting old.
Pursue your conspiracy theories if you must. Just stay away from A Nice Guy, Dr. Adhominem, 'Hammer' Urabi, Top Cat O'Malihan, Vic Vomidog, and Dr. Mike 'Ace' Inhibitor.  Such an above-board group of shining stars I have never seen. 
Rats!! As I am typing there appears a notice  that JWI has just chimed in. I hope he does not say something to make me want to gut everything I just said. 

Whatever @JW Insider's motives may be, by throwing certain things back in my face he has more than once caused me to reevaluate and even retract some errors I otherwise would have made - errors that I would not have wanted to see go into print.
He was also kind enough to acknowledge that I had succeeded in giving him correct counsel on an occassion or two in the past.
If anyone is playing me like a fiddle, to use @tromboneck's phrase, it is he, but I tend to accept him at face value, and he is among the relative few here who consistently back up their statements with facts, even if I am not sure that the facts are good to broadcast to all and sundry in the first place. He pursues a model that I do not like, but I cannot say that I have not benefited by it.

I'm guessing that there is a 98.4572% chance that DefenderOTT actually is AllenSmith. (Do you ever go to that part of the forum that shows who is logged in at a given time and therefore, indirectly, who just logged out, and what post they are currently looking at at any given time?)
 

Oh, for crying out loud, just say there has never been an abuse case without a JW connection and be done with it!
Just take down the blue JW.org signs, replace them with the 'Pedophiles R Us' signs that JRT is working on, and be done with it!
Just tell all the brothers to holler "Molester! Molester!" as they approach, as their counterparts once did "Leper! Leper!" and be done with it!
It is not perfect. It cannot be perfect because everyone that could have put their talants to use instead buried them in the ground. It is processed notifications to unprocessed notifications. It will have to do as the best available. If some of theirs turned out to be duds, it cannot be assumed that all of ours will be grand slams.
If you don't behave, I am going to get Allen to assert that all 17 Witness notifications stem from just a single unfortunate child, which will elevate our cause 10,000 to 1! Kneecap that lone scoundrel perpetrator out and we are perfect!

I do see a reason not to run with it. Even if it turns out to be correct, there is no 6.3 figure from any study or anything like a study, just as there was no 10-times-better or 18-times-worse figure. Imagine just a couple of tweaks to account for what are currently unknowns. And, most importantly, you can't draw any conclusions that are based on the 12-13% CPS figure without some idea of how many of the JW cases would have also been "confirmed" using the same criteria that the Australian CPS uses for confirmation. (Which as was said before, should never come into the calculation for any reason, because all of the JW reports were already filtered for sexual abuse, and the Australian CPS only reports the 12-13% after all types have been confirmed or non-confirmed.)
Remember that we can only compare the number of children confirmed to be sexually abused in the CPS data with the number of children that would have been confirmed to be abused based on the JW cases.
For example, lets look at 1 possibility out of thousands of possibilities based on what a confirmation might look like from the "17 cases." (I'll use all 17 cases here based on the likelihood that these cases actually run from a report on the period from about September 1, 2015 to July 31, 2016, or 11 months, although I am rounding to 12 months.)
8 out 17 cases: dismissed as false or unsubstantiated claims against these 8 perpetrators. That's about half. 1 out of 17 cases: the JW only molested non-JWs, which has been true of known cases elsewhere. (effectively making JW children safer, at least around this predator) 1 out of 17 cases: 2 JW children were molested in a public school setting, through no fault of any Watchtower process or negligence. 2 out of 17 cases: confirmed to involve only one child each 2 out of 17 cases: confirmed to involve two children each 2 out of 17 cases: confirmed to involve three children each 1 of 17 cases: confirmed to involve 7 children. Remember, that this does NOT include an unknown additional number of cases that slipped through the cracks, where molestors are no longer JWs, having left or been disfellowshipped in the past but who molested JW children, unreported, while they were in the congregation but whose activities continue to add to the CPS numbers. I say this because of JW "turnover." While currently one out every 352 Australians is a JW, it is probably true that one out of every 140 Australians either is now, or has been a Witness.
But, for simplicity, we are ignoring any kind of old or new numbers from JWs already included in the CPS data.
So, even after dismissing 10 of the 17 cases as having no effect on the safety of JW children, we still could potentially have 19 children confirmed to have been sexually abused. Of course, more JW cases would be dismissed for non-confirmation because they are probably based on reports, accusations, or confessions that are probably 10 years after the crime, on average. On average, we are therefore measuring how many 10 year old cases might come to light against a time when public awareness and new civil laws for teachers, hospital workers, etc, require every potential or suspected case to be reported. We will not even attempt to account for that, but it would clearly skew the JW numbers to appear much better than they would be in actuality. Also, we should keep in mind that CPS must count children who did not wish to report, and whose parents may have wished not to report. But the process works much quicker with CPS, and helps to confirm more cases because they were usually much more recent.
Remember that since we should only be comparing the number of "confirmed" children abused, we can now compare our 19 confirmed children (out of 68,000) to the 5,559 confirmed children (out of 24,000,000). That alone would create a comparison of .0279% for JWs and .02313%. which would mean you would be 20% less safe as a JW than you would be in the general Australian population.
Of course, another person might think that 0 of the 17 cases would be confirmed. And using CPS methods on such old cases this might even be true. Or you might think that only 5 of the cases would be dismissed, and the remaining 12 would confirm sexual abuse on a mix of one, two and three children each (averaging 2), for a total of 24 confirmed cases. That small difference from 19 to 24 would result in a calculation that says you are 54% less safe as a JW.
Because we still have those intent only on creating contentions among brothers, I will add again that I do not believe these numbers mean anything. I'm just showing what could likely happen if there were a real study based on apples to apples numbers. There is no study, and I still believe children are safer among JWs than the average population, and much safer as JWs than among many other religious groups and institutions. And, as I've said before the changes the Watchtower has been making to the process is 100% better now than it was. (But I don't believe that the 100% is a real statistic.)

I do see a reason not to run with it. Even if it turns out to be correct, there is no 6.3 figure from any study or anything like a study, just as there was no 10-times-better or 18-times-worse figure. Imagine just a couple of tweaks to account for what are currently unknowns. And, most importantly, you can't draw any conclusions that are based on the 12-13% CPS figure without some idea of how many of the JW cases would have also been "confirmed" using the same criteria that the Australian CPS uses for confirmation. (Which as was said before, should never come into the calculation for any reason, because all of the JW reports were already filtered for sexual abuse, and the Australian CPS only reports the 12-13% after all types have been confirmed or non-confirmed.)
Remember that we can only compare the number of children confirmed to be sexually abused in the CPS data with the number of children that would have been confirmed to be abused based on the JW cases.
For example, lets look at 1 possibility out of thousands of possibilities based on what a confirmation might look like from the "17 cases." (I'll use all 17 cases here based on the likelihood that these cases actually run from a report on the period from about September 1, 2015 to July 31, 2016, or 11 months, although I am rounding to 12 months.)
8 out 17 cases: dismissed as false or unsubstantiated claims against these 8 perpetrators. That's about half. 1 out of 17 cases: the JW only molested non-JWs, which has been true of known cases elsewhere. (effectively making JW children safer, at least around this predator) 1 out of 17 cases: 2 JW children were molested in a public school setting, through no fault of any Watchtower process or negligence. 2 out of 17 cases: confirmed to involve only one child each 2 out of 17 cases: confirmed to involve two children each 2 out of 17 cases: confirmed to involve three children each 1 of 17 cases: confirmed to involve 7 children. Remember, that this does NOT include an unknown additional number of cases that slipped through the cracks, where molestors are no longer JWs, having left or been disfellowshipped in the past but who molested JW children, unreported, while they were in the congregation but whose activities continue to add to the CPS numbers. I say this because of JW "turnover." While currently one out every 352 Australians is a JW, it is probably true that one out of every 140 Australians either is now, or has been a Witness.
But, for simplicity, we are ignoring any kind of old or new numbers from JWs already included in the CPS data.
So, even after dismissing 10 of the 17 cases as having no effect on the safety of JW children, we still could potentially have 19 children confirmed to have been sexually abused. Of course, more JW cases would be dismissed for non-confirmation because they are probably based on reports, accusations, or confessions that are probably 10 years after the crime, on average. On average, we are therefore measuring how many 10 year old cases might come to light against a time when public awareness and new civil laws for teachers, hospital workers, etc, require every potential or suspected case to be reported. We will not even attempt to account for that, but it would clearly skew the JW numbers to appear much better than they would be in actuality. Also, we should keep in mind that CPS must count children who did not wish to report, and whose parents may have wished not to report. But the process works much quicker with CPS, and helps to confirm more cases because they were usually much more recent.
Remember that since we should only be comparing the number of "confirmed" children abused, we can now compare our 19 confirmed children (out of 68,000) to the 5,559 confirmed children (out of 24,000,000). That alone would create a comparison of .0279% for JWs and .02313%. which would mean you would be 20% less safe as a JW than you would be in the general Australian population.
Of course, another person might think that 0 of the 17 cases would be confirmed. And using CPS methods on such old cases this might even be true. Or you might think that only 5 of the cases would be dismissed, and the remaining 12 would confirm sexual abuse on a mix of one, two and three children each (averaging 2), for a total of 24 confirmed cases. That small difference from 19 to 24 would result in a calculation that says you are 54% less safe as a JW.
Because we still have those intent only on creating contentions among brothers, I will add again that I do not believe these numbers mean anything. I'm just showing what could likely happen if there were a real study based on apples to apples numbers. There is no study, and I still believe children are safer among JWs than the average population, and much safer as JWs than among many other religious groups and institutions. And, as I've said before the changes the Watchtower has been making to the process is 100% better now than it was. (But I don't believe that the 100% is a real statistic.)

Allen, It has become obvious that you are only on this topic to cause contentions, divisions, obfuscate, and create diversions. This does not mean that all the information you provide is false. But it appears that your overall intent is always to mislead and I think your contentiousness is designed to be part of your approach.
As to statistics, you should also look at http://www.invisiblechildren.org/2017/12/29/child-abuse-statistics-the-best-resources/
Of course they are looking for donations and may have therefore cherry-picked from exaggerated sources, but most of the numbers align with reasonable sources. These are just a few from the page:
37% of American children are reported to Child Protective Services by their 18th birthday (African American children are reported at 54%) 1 in 4 girls and 1 in 6 boys will be sexually abused before they turn 18 years old.13  34% of people who sexually abuse a child are family members.  3% of girls were age 10 or younger at the time of their first rape/victimization, and 30% of girls were between the ages of 11 and 17.  96% of people who sexually abuse children are male, and 76.8% of people who sexually abuse children are adults.  325,000 children are at risk of becoming victims of commercial child sexual exploitation each year.  The average age at which girls first become victims of prostitution is 12 to 14 years old, and the average age for boys is 11 to 13 years old.  80% of child fatalitiesinvolve at least one parent. Estimated that between 50-60% of maltreatment fatalities are not recorded on death certificates. More than 90% of juvenile sexual abuse victims know their perpetrator. Child abuse crosses all socioeconomic and educational levels, religions, ethnic and cultural groups. Terrible but reasonable statistics also appear here at http://victimsofcrime.org/media/reporting-on-child-sexual-abuse/child-sexual-abuse-statistics
---------beginning of quotations from site--------
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Children’s Bureau report Child Maltreatment 2010 found that 9.2% of victimized children were sexually assaulted (page 24). Studies by David Finkelhor, Director of the Crimes Against Children Research Center, show that:
1 in 5 girls and 1 in 20 boys is a victim of child sexual abuse; Self-report studies show that 20% of adult females and 5-10% of adult males recall a childhood sexual assault or sexual abuse incident; During a one-year period in the U.S., 16% of youth ages 14 to 17 had been sexually victimized; Over the course of their lifetime, 28% of U.S. youth ages 14 to 17 had been sexually victimized; Children are most vulnerable to CSA between the ages of 7 and 13. According to a 2003 National Institute of Justice report,
3 out of 4 adolescents who have been sexually assaulted were victimized by someone they knew well (page 5). A Bureau of Justice Statistics report shows
1.6 % (sixteen out of one thousand) of children between the ages of 12-17 were victims of rape/sexual assault (page 18). A study conducted in 1986 found that
63% of women who had suffered sexual abuse by a family member also reported a rape or attempted rape after the age of 14. Recent studies in 2000, 2002, and 2005 have all concluded similar results (page 8). Children who had an experience of rape or attempted rape in their adolescent years were 13.7 times more likely to experience rape or attempted rape in their first year of college (page 9). A child who is the victim of prolonged sexual abuse usually develops low self-esteem, a feeling of worthlessness and an abnormal or distorted view of sex. The child may become withdrawn and mistrustful of adults, and can become suicidal (page 1) Children who do not live with both parents as well as children living in homes marked by parental discord, divorce, or domestic violence, have a higher risk of being sexually abused (page 171). In the vast majority of cases where there is credible evidence that a child has been penetrated, only between 5 and 15% of those children will have genital injuries consistent with sexual abuse (page 2). Child sexual abuse is not solely restricted to physical contact; such abuse could include noncontact abuse, such as exposure, voyeurism, and child pornography (page 1). According to the study published online and in the June print issue of the Journal of Adolescent Health.
Compared to those with no history of sexual abuse, young males who were sexually abused were five times more likely to cause teen pregnancy, three times more likely to have multiple sexual partners and two times more likely to have unprotected sex, ------end of quotes from site-----
Note added by JWI: My apologies for blatant copying of the page. I began to reformat but left all the information as it was. Will remove if there is any complaint.

I already mentioned this to you Allen, that you should tell the truth when making an accusation. You indicate that I defended JTR for saying things like there were "1006 perpetrators in over 5,000 instances." This is another falsehood from you. I have never defended those numbers. In fact, I saw them before on this forum and more than once, I corrected them.
In fact there were 1,006 perpetrators who were Jehovah's Witnesses at the time of the the accusations of their crimes. There were more instances than just 1,006 of course. But the number of instances reported in the documentation was not 5,000. Here are some quotes from the ARC's website and documentation. Mostly from: https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/sites/default/files/file-list/Case Study 29 - Findings Report - Jehovahs Witnesses.pdf
As at 16 September 2016, the Royal Commission has held 5,925 private sessions and more than 1,687 people were waiting to attend one. Many accounts from these sessions will be recounted in later Royal Commission reports in a de-identified form.
The 5,925 "instances" probably referred to many from Catholic, Unified, JWs, and many other institutions and organizations. Page 11 says:
The evidence before the Royal Commission is that it is not the practice of the Jehovah’s Witness organisation to report child sexual abuse to authorities unless it is required by law to do so. At the time of the public hearing, the Jehovah’s Witness organisation in Australia had recorded allegations, reports or complaints of child sexual abuse made against 1,006 members of the organisation. There is no evidence before the Royal Commission that the organisation reported any of those allegations to police or any other secular authority.
Other statistics that might be of relevance in answering the question about the "90% claim" were also included in the document. It said that the total number of JWs in Australia was 68,000 as of October 2016 (7,000 of them were elders and m.s.) and that it had been 53,000 in 1990, increasing only 29% while the population had increased 38% in the same period. (The worldwide JW membership was reported as 8.2 million at the time.) Also, of interest, is the fact that branch rules for handing child abuse cases began to specifically reference child abuse in 1988, and the rule to call the legal department of the branch for any such case started in 1992. (See also the 1991 "Flock" book.) This might help explain why so few cases were recorded prior to 1988, even though the earliest case references the 1950's.
Page 58 of the October 2016 pdf document states:
In response to the Royal Commission’s summons, Watchtower Australia produced some 5,000 documents comprising, among other things, case files relating to 1,006 alleged perpetrators of child sexual abuse dating back to 1950. Royal Commission staff analysed those files and produced data which was for the most part uncontested by Watchtower Australia. Perhaps someone got the idea that there were 5,000 instances from a statement like the above. But that isn't what is says, or means.
Other statistics in the findings show that 579 of the 1006 admitted their guilt, and that 199 of the 1006 had been involved in child abuse or an accusation of the same before becoming JWs, although it was admitted (by Mr. Spinks, a JW on the stand) that these probably were also involved in such accusations again after becoming Witnesses (which would be the explanation as to why they were included on the list).
Page 58 also clarified that the number being thrown around as 5,000 alleged victims, according to the data provided, is really about 1,800:
the allegations, reports or complaints that the organisation received relate to at least 1,800 alleged victims of child sexual abuse I will quote the additional statistical points from page 58 which included the point above:
the allegations, reports or complaints that the organisation received relate to at least 1,800 alleged victims of child sexual abuse 579 of those against whom allegations were made confessed to having committed child sexual abuse of the 1,006 members against whom allegations of child sexual abuse were made, 108 were elders or ministerial servants at the time of the first instance of alleged abuse 28 alleged perpetrators were appointed as elders or ministerial servants after an allegation of child sexual abuse was made against them 401 alleged perpetrators were disfellowshipped as a result of an allegation of child sexual abuse and 230 of those alleged perpetrators were later reinstated of those disfellowshipped, 78 were disfellowshipped on more than one occasion as a result of an allegation of child sexual abuse.  

I hope you don't feel you are being blamed in any way. I know that you used the original "study" in good faith and for a good motive and purpose.
It was a major one, but not the only one. My response to it was intentionally simplified, so that such a discussion as this could deal with some of these facts incrementally. Otherwise it could seem too overwhelming to someone who hadn't yet looked at it carefully. As I said just prior to getting into the details . . .
Here are some other points that make it difficult to compare "apples to apples."
The 12% number, which will vary slightly from year to year does not refer to a percentage of notifications about child sexual abuse. It can only be tallied after all the investigations are completed into every type of child abuse complaint, and only refers to a percent of confirmed cases. It can't be used directly as a percent of not-yet-confirmed cases. In the cases reported by the Witness congregations these have already been identified as child abuse cases requiring reporting. They start out as already identified allegations of sexual abuse, but not confirmed.
But in the case of the reports from the congregations, we don't know how many children were involved. A single report could be about a person accused of abusing 10 different children, for all we know. Or it could be a false claim altogether.
Of course, it is also foolish to try to create a comparison with such a small sample provided by the congregations. A difference of only one case out of such as small number creates a huge difference in the comparison. CPS (Child Protective Services) take reports of accusations, bruises and emotional trauma (etd) from the perspective of teachers, social workers, law enforcement, neighbors, etc. Most of the congregation reports are not from children, but are more concerned with the adult. You can start to see this from a review of the Australian cases and many of the anecdotal cases about Witnesses coming in from around the world. The average time it takes for an abused child to report is several years. The Australian CPS numbers do include persons who have been abused in the past, but are expected to mostly focus on those who are (or might be) in current danger.
A real study could be done if Australia's CPS numbers had accurately kept track of religion both of perpetrators and victims. A better study could be done if there were numbers from the congregations broken down by year, at least since 2011.
But even here we are comparing apples and oranges again. Typically old cases come to the attention of the congregation. If they are new cases, then it is likely that they are already baked into the CPS numbers. CPS focuses on new cases. CPS looks at it mostly from the danger posed to a specific child. The congregations' cases focus on the guilt of an alleged perpetrator who may have victimized anywhere from 0 to 20 children, or perhaps 1 or 2 children 20 times each. (Most familial sexual abuse cases seem to go this way.)
And then again, we have the problem that the Australian ARC data is proof that the congregations never themselves would report cases to law enforcement or social services even when a perpetrator might be victimizing more people inside and outside the congregation. We also know from the interviews that elders involved in the cases did not encourage reporting by victims. ARC went ahead and reported hundreds of these cases to law enforcement for investigation. I read a few of these cases as reported in newspapers and they are horrendous.
So the biggest problem is that we are comparing against a system that evidently OVER-reports (CPS) based on the evidence from its own investigations. The congregations have a long history of UNDER-reporting and hiding. So even a study that goes back many years, based on congregational data, would be worthless for comparison purposes.
I'm sure we do better than most institutions with respect to the propensity for criminal perpetrators to associate with us -- just for the purpose of access to children, and the fact that they are often punished and socially ostracized if caught, and that the nature of the congregation allows for very few interactions with the outside world. (For example, non-JW perpetrators have less access to JW children, as they are less likely to join boy scouts, sleep-away camps, etc.) These things don't stop determined criminals, but they must surely give them some concern.
There are more issues than these, but it's enough for now.

It can definitely give us the proper attitude with respect to preaching. But on a larger scale it could also refer to the fact that the Jewish converts to Christianity, might have thought that their reward was greater for being first to convert and follow Jesus. Or they thought themselves better for having been born Jews, who had been God's chosen people for thousands of years. The need for the timely lesson would have arisen at the time that Matthew was written where Gentiles were now being accepted into Christianity at the last minute (the last hour) and why should they have the same reward? Had Gentiles been following the Law for 1,500 years? Surely they needed to have a law to follow, too, in order to receive a reward, right? The importance of this development in Christianity is not to be minimized, it was a "sacred secret."
(Ephesians 3:4-6) 4 So when you read this, you can realize my comprehension of the sacred secret of the Christ. 5 In other generations this secret was not made known to the sons of men as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by spirit, 6 namely, that people of the nations should, in union with Christ Jesus and through the good news, be joint heirs and fellow members of the body and partakers with us of the promise.  

Nothing against your uncle, but I have noticed quite frequently friends making illogical and contradictory remarks such as this. I wonder if upon reflection they realize that what they've just said makes no sense at all, but just leave it at that. I am guilty of this too by the way. Or are they genuinely so blinkered? Or is it just a saying. No need to answer. This is merely a rhetorical question 

I love irony !
otherwise that would be an upvote.
Hey! that quote is an "Elephant" AllenSmith could chew on !

Finally, you are back on track with this question. For me, the answer is that I don't know.
I've said before that I think Witnesses fare better than the general population in all categories of child sexual abuse, but I don't know by how much. I think Witnesses fare much, much better in some categories of child sexual abuse. If I had to guess, I'd say Witnesses are generally two or three times as safe as the rest of the population, whether or not I have found any statistics to bear this out very well.
My opinion is that the Watchtower's track record is much better now, especially in the last year or two, but that it still has a couple of necessary adjustments to align its procedures with the spirit of justice, rather than try to dig in its heels on a specific letter of the law. My opinion is that procedure has been poor in the past, and was once very slow to improve, but is still not as bad as several other churches and institutions.
Certain men in leadership positions have been protected, some inadvertently, through a policy that is partly Biblical, but not consistent with the way we handle some other sins. (Circumstantial evidence has been OK for adultery, for example.) It's probably because this is an easy crime/sin to dismiss as not provable in many cases. And it's something we really hope isn't true, and we really hope it doesn't have to cause a scandal in the congregation and community. And we hate to see something that might have been handled within the congregation to be handed over to Caesar, whom we have several reasons not to always trust.
In the last two weeks, I finally asked my uncle, a former and now-substitute circuit overseer, his opinion on the improvements in this area. He agreed that in a judicial setting, there is always a possibility that we would judge a case wrongly, in favor of the claim of either party, and none of us would want to make decisions with such far-reaching effects on people's lives. There is a subliminal wish to avoid it if possible. So, for years, brothers who obviously had a problem in this regard, even if they admitted some level of "wrongdoing," were typically given strong counsel, told to stay away from situations where such a problem could occur again, and every effort was made within reason to keep the police and community out of it. This was often the same wish of the parents of an abused child, and this wish to avoid scandal was encouraged, sometimes overtly. You probably remember a line in the earliest "Flock" books where elders could get a "free pass" on certain types of sin, and these sins were never specified. This came out of a time when certain "embarrassing" or "scandalous" sins would have a long-term effect on the ability of the elder to be respected, so the elder could take his "slap on the wrist" from the rest of the elder body and he would come out of it unscathed as to his reputation in the congregation. I knew of a situation where this principle was invoked for a wife-beating case. But, my uncle pointed out that it is obvious that it could apply to a wide range of sins or crimes that were thought to be in the same category. (I think he assumed I knew what he meant, but he didn't make this clear enough.) He said that he was humbled by the change in the procedure of contacting the civil authorities. His explanation was ironic. He said that "it finally puts the fear of God in these pedophiles."
 

Excellent point

I LOVE IT when somebody else does the heavy lifting ... like taking a Grand Piano up a three floor spiral staircase ... and gets it RIGHT!
I did that with a refrigerator when I was a young man ... but worrying statistics and data until they yield TRUTH ... is HARDER.
That's a LOT of work JW Insider, and I wish I could write you an appropriate check that would not bounce.
 

It is far from a simple proportion based upon straightforward facts. It is a terribly sloppy calculation. You should look at it again. I won't get into all the potential problems that could bring the final number one way or the other, but I will point out some things that must have been missed.
First of all, you can find the argument over at: http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-witness/TI5JLVKMB8LO0SE7C/arc-proves-that-jw-children-are-10-times-safer
I point to that because it might be the original source of the "study," although I can't be too sure. I will try to highlight everything from the original in blue text, and then mark my own inserted comments in red text:
Thanks to the ARC (Australian Royal Commission) we now have an apples to apples comparison with a pool size large enough to be significant.

According to Australian Institute of Family Studies [1], there were 320,169 notifications of child abuse (2014 - 2015). Further the studies show that of these 13% is sexual abuse which provides us with a number of 41,622 notifications of child abuse. Further the total population of Australia for 2015 is 23,968,973 [2].

This give us a ratio of 41,622 / 23,968,973.
No it doesn't. In fact, if you read the source material here, [listed at the end of this post] you will see that the figures were taken from 2014-2015, back in March 2017, and that, as of June 2017, the figures were updated for 2015-2016. The number 320,169 (2015) becomes 355,935 (2016) which you might expect would be better for the overall original argument anyway. But notice that these are multiple notifications about 42,457 children (96% investigations complete). Here's the relevant quote from the source material.
In 2015-16, of the total number of notifications (355,935), 164,987 cases (involving 115,024 children) of child abuse were investigated or were in the process of being investigated. Of these investigations, 133,329 (96%) were finalised by 31 August 20163 and 60,989 cases were substantiated (AIHW, 2017). . . . The 60,989 substantiations recorded nationally involved 45,714 children, which was a 7.7% increase from the 42,457 children found to be harmed or at risk of harm from abuse and/or neglect in 2014-15 (AIHW, 2016). Then we still need to look at how many of these 45,714 children were believed to have been abused sexually. The 13% figure in 2015 is closer to 12.2% in 2016, and the final number of children was determined to be 5,559 as you can see in the chart.  
Table 3: Primary substantiated harm types in Australian states and territories, 2015-16 Harm type NSW Vic. Qld  WA a SA Tas. ACT NT b Australia   Emotional abuse 5,961 9.133 2,123 1,558 414 376 225 549 20,339 Neglect 5,677 583 2,217 1,168 691 255 136 676 11,403 Physical abuse 2,776 2,975 1.014 750 383 104 64 295 8,361 Sexual abuse 2,868 1,463 267 696 152 35 24 54 5,559 Not stated 0 0 0 26 1 25 0 0 52 Total 17,282 14,154 5,621 4,198 1,641 795 449 1,574 45,714 This means that the ratio is not really 41,622 / 23,968,973 but should be much closer to 5559 / 23,968,973 = 0.02%

As was reported to the ARC [3][4], since August 2015 - Janurary 2017 the service desk received 17 reports of child abuse. Nine were historical cases and none involved an elder. They all occurred in a familial setting. Of the 17, 2 refused to report as they were adult survivors and was their right not to report. That is a period of 17 months. Therfore the rate is 1 per month.

The total number of witnesses (publishers) in Australia is 67,418 [5].

This give us a ratio of 12 / 67,418 per year.
Unfortunately, the reference for [3] is missing in topix, but reference [4] appears to be the place where the original "study" got the number "17" from. (See page 13, paragraph 34.) It's possible that these run from August 2015 to January 2017, but the context of the entire section suggests that it was part of a response from Watchtower Australia dated much closer to August 1, 2016, which included the August 1, 2016 Watchtower letter to all Bodies of Elders, new guidelines submitted in "Child Protection Guidelines for Branch Office Service Desks," also dated August 1, 2016, (page 8, paragraph 21). In fact, even the beginning date of August 2015 might not be correct. Of course, it is also dangerous to work from such a small sample even if it's over a 12 to 17 month period, especially if it is a time of unprecedented scrutiny.
But we will give the "study" the benefit of the doubt, here, and say that these 17 cases represent only one case per month during the period, and that these are "predictive" of what can be expected, even without a year-to-year comparison as was done in the Australian CPS source material. If this is so, it gives us a ratio, as stated above of 12/ 67,418 per year which is:
12/67,418= 0.02%
Notice that this is the same as the general population of Australia noted above, not 10 times better.
5,559 / 23,968,973 = 0.0002 12 / 67,418 = 0.0002 References...

[1] https://aifs.gov.au/cfca/publications/child-a...
[2] http://www.worldometers.info/world-population...
[4] http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/d...
 

Yikes! I said nothing about "proof" in either a situation of nations slinging accusations, nor did I even say that sexual abuse can be proven by hidden info that only trained experts can recognize. Proof (and by that I suppose you mean incontrovertible or overwhelming evidence) is rarely a part of sexual abuse allegations, except in extreme circumstances (multiple eyewitnesses, rape kits, video, DNA). Usually, a predator leaves only victims who he (or she) believes will never come forward to complain. (Most young victims don't complain until many years later -- based on fear, threat, "guilt," lack of understanding, lack of trust in any confidants.) But he often leaves circumstantial evidence based on patterns of grooming the victim(s), patterns of characteristics among the types of victims chosen, patterns of controlling the victims, patterns in the methods to gain time alone with victims. These become things to watch out for when trying to protect our children from suspected predators, too. But predators evolve their methods and may try dozens of "patterns."
There is nothing that can re-define child abuse "proof."
No. They need to understand such situations better for nearly the opposite reason. So they can understand the complexities, and know why they are not relying upon themselves to make legal and criminal determinations. Also, they can have more empathy for all involved, and realize that the perpetrator is going to be an expert liar, and will appear completely innocent. They should also realize that the victim will, more often than not, appear to be a complete liar, appear "guilty" of something, with inconsistencies in the story, his or her memories, timelines, etc. They may appear hateful and spiteful and unchristian, while the perpetrator may appear godly and humble and caring and concerned. They should realize what I said above about the unlikelihood of "proof" of any kind.

I see the same thing, and it's usually overkill. It's often not limited to just wanting to have a serious discussion about process and practice and doctrinal issues. Some is out of anger at the organization, obviously, and therefore includes typical spite from ex-JWs. Some is out of the iconoclastic desire to tear down something that is essentially good but they perceive it as claiming itself to be "perfect." But there is little chance of this being discussed thoroughly among JWs in a congregational setting, or in a monthly broadcast. There is little chance that JW.ORG will ever include a comments section. So this is still about as good a place as any I know to discuss it with others who might wish to put some depth and thought into fixing it.
Perhaps it does. And perhaps your point is true.  But a scale can balance rotten fish with rotten vegetables. It would still be good to know if the counterpoint is valid.

Allen, Your point should be the same as mine, and it would be a shame (literally) if it is isn't. I understand as well as anyone why you think that a knee-jerk reaction to protect the reputation of the organization is so important. I've been there myself. And sometimes that reaction is correct and on-track. But there are times when justice is more important than protecting a reputation. When we put ourselves on the side of justice we are defending Jehovah's reputation, and this is better for the organization, too, in the long run. There are times when unrighteousness should be exposed. It is short-sighted to think that we are defending Jehovah's name by covering up what is bad. 
So, my point is that the problem is bad, because every instance of child abuse is bad -- even if our statistics are better than someone else's. If you don't think the problem is bad, then I don't trust that you are are doing everything you can to reduce the problem. We should advocate for children. We should advocate for justice. And we need to do more about this reputation we have earned, as an organization, for trying to hide the extent of the problem. It makes us look like we would prefer ignoring or hiding the problem rather than admit that the problem is bad.
I don't think your insult has any basis. You say that people like me threw incorrect information out there without first understanding secular law. I can't speak for what others know or don't know about secular law, but I saw no instances where your insult applied to anything I said on the subject. I don't recall anything JTR said on this subject, but I do recall several of the things Anna said, and I don't think either of us stated anything incorrect or conflicting with respect to secular law. Both of us, as I recall, discussed the value of Brother Jackson requesting a legal change with respect to a consistent requirement for reporting, in all cases, which would resolve a large portion of the inconsistencies. As I recall, we both discussed this long before you yourself mentioned that you also agree with Brother Jackson's recommendation as a resolution for many issues.
If you really think I said something incorrect, I welcome the correction. But with you it's usually just bluster, obfuscation, vagueness, and braggadocio. I hope this isn't more of the same.
I don't condemn the Watchtower for inaction. I have long stated that the Watchtower Society has made many excellent changes with respect to these crimes in the past decade especially, and even some good changes to policy and procedure in the last two years. Perhaps you think you are trying to impress an audience who doesn't know any better when you make up false things about people you don't seem to want to get along with. If you have facts, that's great, but please leave aside all the acting and histrionics.
There are not many way to make sense of that statement of yours. The trouble seems to lie in your attempt to fit too many untruths in a single sentence without thinking clearly about the issue. To be clear I am not excusing anything. I am "blatantly" trying to get to truth of the "90% claim." If you have any facts to add, great! As you can see, you probably weren't thinking clearly at all when you said I was "condemning the use of other religious statistics." I was the one who just recommended the use of other religious statistics for comparison.
If you don't like this topic, Allen, you are free to avoid it, but please don't fill it with untruths for your own purposes.