Despite numerous scandals in institutions and churches, sexual abuse of children remains a topic that is too rarely discussed openly. In 2025, Prof. Dr. Harald Dreßing conducted the first Germany-wide representative dark field study on this topic. In the interview, he talks about shocking figures, structural failings, and the question of how prevention can really work. 

Prof. Dreßing, you have been looking at the topic of abuse and sexualized violence against children and adolescents in an academic capacity for many years. It is a huge dark field. Why do we know so little about the actual extent of the crimes?

Dreßing: Those who are affected often don't report what happened to them or only report it much later. On the one hand, many people blame themselves because they (incorrectly, of course) feel like they are responsible for the abuse themselves. On the other hand, they experience feelings of shame, and there is still a big concern about not being believed. Imagine someone being brave enough to make the abuse public and then ultimately not being believed. That's the worst thing that can happen to those affected. 

You have always called for a Germany-wide representative dark field study, and ultimately did it yourself in 2025. What was the study able to achieve?

Dreßing: It is astonishing that there were no representative figures for Germany showing how frequently child abuse occurs until now. There was also a lack of knowledge about the context of the crimes, so questions like where does it happen? Who are the perpetrators? How are the affected persons doing? What role does social media play? Our study provided answers to questions like these for the first time. For example, we looked at whether there are specific situations that increase the risk of abuse. 

What were you able to show with the study?

Dreßing: One of our results was that boys were more often the victims of sexual violence than girls in what is known as institutional contexts, so for example in schools, kindergartens, or pediatric and youth welfare facilities. We already knew this from churches, particularly the Catholic Church, but knowing that the situation is the same in schools and sports clubs is an important finding. This knowledge can be used in a targeted way for prevention programs. We don't just want to collect data, it's about protecting children better in the future and preventing abuse. 

A total of 12.7 percent of those surveyed reported sexualized violence during childhood or adolescence in the study. What does that tell us about the extent of the problem?

Dreßing: Our study is based on a representative sample with data from the Registry Office. This means we can reliably extrapolate this 12.7 percent up to the general population of 18 to 59-year-olds. This means that 5.7 million people in Germany experienced sexual violence during their childhood or adolescence. This is an alarming number that is made even more alarming by the fact that we're not just talking about crimes that took place a long time ago – around half of the crimes occurred since the year 2000. 

Did that surprise you?

Dreßing: Yes, that surprised me. Particularly the fact that the abuse is so common in the group of 18 to 29-year-olds. We now have prevention programs and I would have expected the extent to be lower. Of course we can't say anything about the chronological trend with our cross-sectional study. To do this, we urgently need more surveys using the same method in the future, around every three years. The study design we used is the gold standard for questions of this type in epidemiological research.

How do you rate the current prevention work?

Dreßing: Prevention is tremendously important, but it's often done using a scattergun approach: the same for everyone. It costs a lot of money and can sometimes not be as effective as a specific approach based on data collected using scientific methods. It's important to know the contexts of the crimes. To make prevention successful, I need to know what the specific risk factors are in an institution. The efficacy of the measures should also be scientifically tested. In medicine, drugs aren't approved unless they have been proven to be effective. In prevention work, on the other hand, the motto is just "at some point it'll be fine". But there are few academic studies on whether prevention actually works.  

The family plays an important role as the scene of the crime...  

Dreßing: Yes, abuse most commonly occurs within the family and within the friendship group. That means the perpetrator is not an unknown person hiding behind a bush somewhere to ambush a child, it's people the children have a close, trusting relationship with – fathers, mothers, uncles, aunts, grandparents, close friends of the family. 

How can prevention be successful here? 

Dreßing: Families are generally not so isolated that there aren't any acquaintances or friends who might notice something. I believe we need to raise awareness of the topic. We need to encourage people to report abuse, even if it happens in their families or friendship groups. Of course there are significant obstacles to this, because you don't want to falsely accuse anybody.  

Do you feel that responsibility lies with the institutions or the family environment where awareness needs to be raised?

Dreßing: Both. Prevention actually starts in day care facilities. I think parents should ask about the protection scheme in the facility as well as about the quality of the food. I would want more parents to discuss this topic. Each daycare facility should have a protection scheme. Most of them, though, are just lying in a cupboard and nobody cares about them. 

Lots of people don't dare to talk about these things.

Dreßing: When parents ask, the answer is often "don't you trust us?" But the opposite is true: we do trust them. We bring our child to the facility and trust them, but we want the topic to be present and we also want to know what training sessions are provided for how the topic is discussed in the team. Parents have a certain power and also a responsibility to discuss it. I believe many people are not aware of it.

In the study, a third of those affected reported experiencing sexualized violence via digital channels. What crimes does that include? 

Dreßing: There are a wide range. Children or adolescents may, for example, receive unsolicited pornographic material or they are involved in conversations with sexual contents. Among other things, they are asked to send naked pictures of themselves which are in turn used to blackmail them. In the dark field study, around 30 percent of the people who answered stated that they had experienced sexual overstepping of boundaries of this type via the internet or on social media. This is significantly more than is reported to the police. This means the dark field is huge. 

Do real-world assaults happen after digital contacts too?

Dreßing: Digital channels are definitely used to initiate meetings and commit real-world crimes. From the study, we know that around 60 percent of those who have experienced overstepping of boundaries of this type online or on social media also reported experiencing sexual violence in the real world. The digital channels are another, easily accessible gateway for perpetrators. We should raise awareness among children and adolescents to a greater extent – teaching them how to handle personal data, particularly images on social media. Children should learn to be responsible with their smartphones. 

More than a third of those affected state that they have never spoken about what they experienced. What needs to change for those affected to seek help more quickly?

Dreßing: Firstly, we need to improve knowledge about the assistance that is available. In the dark field study, 50 percent stated that they didn't know who they should turn to if they had suspicions or if they themselves were affected. This is a very high percentage. There have been major information campaigns run by the Independent Representative on Issues of Sexual Abuse of Children, but the effectiveness of this probably very expensive measure is obviously very limited. I believe we need to break the taboo so it's normal for parents to speak openly about it with their children. It would also be helpful if celebrities who experience abuse spoke openly about it. They can be role models for other people who are affected.

What are the long-term consequences of abuse? 

Dreßing: In the study, we showed that children affected by sexual violence were doing less well mentally than those who were not affected. A common consequence of abuse is post-traumatic stress disorder. People relive the trauma over and over again. They develop a distrust of social relationships, avoid certain situations, and have nightmares and sleep disorders. It can go so far that a school education or professional training is impossible and those affected are permanently reliant on social services. Our study also showed that those affected are significantly more frequently reliant on pensions and benefits. 

Doctors and therapists are important points of contact for those affected. How is the health care system currently set up?  

Dreßing: There have been lots of positive changes here. There are nationwide outpatient trauma clinics. Psychiatrists and psychotherapists are definitely well placed to discuss the topic. What does need some work is the knowledge of primary care physicians. They are hugely important as the first point of contact, as they make the referral to the specialists. 

Where do you see the greatest need for action at the moment: in prevention, in prosecution, or in caring for those affected?

Dreßing: Equally in all three areas. We need continuous research that shows how the dark field is developing and whether we are really seeing a drop in abuse. Then we need increased investigations in individual institutions, not just in churches but also in clubs and kindergartens, like the MHG or ForuM study. There have been relatively few of these until now, and this is also due to the state conditions. The state is astonishingly lazy on the topic. We need appropriate laws that allow researchers to go into the staff archives and carry out investigations there. Until now we've been on legally very shaky ground, and I am not seeing any initiatives from the legislature to improve this. We also need prevention programs tailored to the respective facility and we need to perform an academic evaluation of them. Finally, we need increased awareness and information. We need to work in all areas. 

What does the prosecution situation look like?

Dreßing: Unfortunately, it's a tragedy. Our study showed that only seven percent of those affected reported what happened and started criminal proceedings. Barriers to this must be broken down and the fear taken out of it. Those affected repeatedly demand that the limitation period for sexual abuse be repealed. Murder has no limitation period, for example. Sexual abuse is actually murder of the soul, but it does have a limitation period. The legislator could give some leeway here. The compensation for those affected also certainly requires improvement.

You coordinated and supported the key academic studies in the Catholic Church (MHG study) and the Evangelical Church (ForuM study). How do you look back on that today? What was successful and what wasn't?

Dreßing: With the MHG study, I think we managed to position the topic in such a way that the Catholic Church could no longer ignore it. They had to address it. MHG is cited in international literature as a milestone and a role model. The way in which the Church is addressing the situation as a result, however, I find disillusioning. 

How about the ForuM study? Looking back at it today, would you do anything different?

Dreßing: In ForuM, we tried to adapt the successful approach from the MHG study, but ultimately we didn't get the data we needed. I don't find the Evangelical Church's explanation that they didn't know how much work it would be for them plausible. It must be stated that the Evangelical Church ultimately did not provide us with everything they were contractually obliged to. This is also a result, and to my mind a result that shows that an institution is not ready to address the topic at a deeper level, despite their official statements. I have to praise the Catholic Church, who provided us with significantly better data.

Where do the churches stand on the topic of abuse today?

Dreßing: Unfortunately not where they could be. There was a short time window in 2018 after the presentation of the results of the MHG study. If they had reacted in a clever and determined manner at that point, they may have been able to win back credibility. Looking back, I would say that they were actually only paying lip service at the time. I think the way in which the Catholic Church dealt with it harmed them. With every new expert opinion, credibility is squandered. I can hardly bear to hear yet another Catholic bishop saying "we've learned, we need to listen to the victims." We've known that for more than a decade. We finally need specific measures so children are safer in a church environment. But they don't want to change anything about children's confessions, for example, even though the MHG study showed that this is a place where abuse is initiated and in some cases even committed.

Are the churches dealing with those affected appropriately?

Dreßing: There are different interest groups even among those affected. I am in contact with people who are affected, both in the academic field and through my work as a court expert. Many of them complain that they did not think the handling of the issue was adequate, and in some cases it was humiliating all over again. Some of them even talk about being further traumatized. I have examined some men who experienced serious sexual violence at the hands of the Catholic Church and literally said to me "what happened to me when I tried to get compensation or payments in recognition was almost worse than the abuse itself." This is why our advice to the Catholic Church was to put the decision on payments in recognition in independent hands. But the church wants to keep control. As long as they aren't willing to give up control, processing that is accepted by those affected too will not work.

Do those affected react to your work?

Dreßing: There was some explicit feedback in the questionnaires in our representative dark field study. The participants thanked us for doing the study and were happy to be able to talk about it in anonymized form. Feedback like that naturally encourages us in our work.  

What are your wishes for the next ten years? 

Dreßing: It's important for the research results to be implemented in practice and for them to lead to children being in safe hands when we send them to a kindergarten, for example. If a child experiences sexual violence, that is a serious trauma. It can destroy their lives. That's why I work so intensively on the topic. As an academic, but also as a father and a grandfather, I want to make a small contribution to our children growing up in a safe world.

About the interviewee

Harald Dreßing has been working at the CIMH since 1988. As a Senior Physician, he ran various open and protected wards and the sleep laboratory before taking over the field of Forensic Psychiatry in 1993. Since then, he has written more than 3,000 reports for courts across the country. Dreßing coordinated the MHG study on abuse in the Catholic Church and was also involved in the ForuM study on abuse in the Evangelical Church.

The study

The national dark field study takes the context and the consequences of sexualized violence against children and adolescents in Germany into account for the first time. In collaboration with Infratest dimap, a representative sample of the population between 18 and 59 in Germany was surveyed both by post and online. Out of the 10,000 people contacted, 3,012 people were able to be included in the analysis, representing a response rate of 30.2 percent. A total of 12.7 percent of those surveyed reported sexualized violence, and 20.6 percent of all of the women surveyed were affected. The rate was 4.8 percent for men.