Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse - Final Report into Yeshivah Melbourne and Yeshiva Bondi

​On Friday 15 December 2017, the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse released its Final Report on the work it has undertaken over the past five years. Below are the key findings and information related to Yeshivah Melbourne and Yeshiva Bondi, the two Jewish (Chabad) institutions the Commission investigated due to numerous allegations of child sexual abuse, cover-ups and intimidation (verbatim in point form for each relevant paragraph). I have also included the full report into Yeshiva(h) at the bottom (PDF).

Key findings and information

• ​We found that members of the incorporated associations and the Committee of Management were often connected through personal friendships and familial ties. Similarly, key employees of Yeshivah Melbourne and members of the Committee of Management were closely connected by family, longstanding friendships and/or relationships of marriage.
• In 2007, Rabbi Zvi Hersh Telsner succeeded Rabbi Groner, his father-in-law, as head rabbi of Yeshivah Melbourne. Rabbi Telsner gave evidence at the public hearing in the Yeshiva Bondi and Yeshivah Melbourne case study. During the Institutional review of Yeshiva/h hearing, we heard that Rabbi Telsner had resigned from his position in September or October 2015 due to concerns that ‘his conduct in regards to some of the victims and families of the sexual abuse problem was not appropriate’ and that as a result there was no head rabbi at Yeshivah Melbourne.
• Mr Don Wolf, who was chairman of the Committee of Management from 1998 to 2014, accepted that the Committee of Management had a legal responsibility to oversee the activities of Rabbi Groner.
• We found that the relationship between the head rabbi and the Committee of Management was one of deference to the rabbi rather than oversight and control.
• Some particular features of Chabad-Lubavitch communities contributed to how Yeshiva Bondi and Yeshivah Melbourne responded to allegations of child sexual abuse.
• [W]e heard that rabbis had significant influence upon the thinking and conduct of members of the Yeshiva Bondi and Yeshivah Melbourne communities (particularly the responses of those communities to the issue of child sexual abuse).
• The RCV issued an advisory resolution (the 2010 RCV Resolution) that stated that the prohibition of mesirah and arka’ot did not apply to information about child sexual abuse and that it was an obligation of Jewish law (a halachic obligation) to report child sexual abuse to civil authorities. Despite the clear guidance set out in the 2010 RCV Resolution, we heard that senior members of the Yeshivah Melbourne and Yeshiva Bondi communities continued to give the impression that the prohibition of mesirah, loshon horo and arka’ot did apply to cases involving child sexual abuse.
• Members of the Chabad-Lubavitch community rely heavily on standing and connections inside their community for marriage, employment, education of children and social support.
• We heard that, in some cases, victims and their families experienced such severe ostracism and shunning that they felt unable to remain in the community.
• As of 31 May 2017, of the 4,029 survivors who told us during private sessions about child sexual abuse in religious institutions, 25 survivors told us about abuse in Jewish institutions. Of those, 15 survivors told us about child sexual abuse in connection with Yeshiva Bondi or Yeshivah Melbourne.
• [P]rivate sessions information almost certainly under-represents the total number of victims of child sexual abuse and likely under-represents victims of more recent abuse [at Yeshivah Melbourne and Yeshiva Bondi].
• [I]t is not possible to estimate the incidence or prevalence of child sexual abuse in connection with either Yeshiva Bondi or Yeshivah Melbourne.
• Of those who told us in private sessions about child sexual abuse in connection with Yeshiva Bondi or Yeshivah Melbourne, all of the victims were male. Of those who provided information about the age of the victim at the time of first abuse, the average age was 11.3 years. Most survivors told us about sexual abuse by an adult, and all survivors told us about sexual abuse by males. Most of the perpetrators we heard about were teachers. We also heard about perpetrators who were people in religious ministry (rabbis), ancillary staff at the institutions or volunteers.
• We also heard that leaders at Yeshiva Bondi had limited or no understanding of child sexual abuse. At the time of the public hearing in Yeshiva Bondi and Yeshivah Melbourne, Rabbi Yosef Feldman had not undertaken any training on how to recognise child sexual abuse, ‘besides what’s in Jewish law’. He accepted that he would benefit from further education and training. Rabbi Yosef Feldman freely admitted to a lack of technical knowledge about child sexual abuse but expressed the belief that his ignorance was unimportant, partly because he believed child sexual abuse to be uncommon.
• Despite his role as a director of Yeshiva College and the Dean of Yeshiva Gedolah Rabbinical College, we found that Rabbi Yosef Feldman was either ignorant of or ill-informed about:

1. conduct amounting to child sexual abuse
2. the criminal nature of child sexual abuse
3. the obligations in New South Wales to report complaints of child sexual abuse to external authorities, including the New South Wales Ombudsman. 

• During the Yeshiva Bondi and Yeshivah Melbourne public hearing, Rabbi Pinchus Feldman said that, while guidelines set by the New South Wales Department of Education and Communities call for biennial ‘in service’ staff training on the topic of child sexual abuse, the Yeshiva College Bondi has opted to undertake annual training. Despite this, Rabbi Pinchus Feldman and Rabbi Yosef Feldman each told us that they had not undertaken any formal training in respect of child sexual abuse. Rabbi Pinchus Feldman acknowledged that it would be helpful for all rabbis to undertake formal training in recognising and responding to complaints of child sexual abuse.
• We found that, for the period from 1984 to 2007, the Yeshivah College Melbourne did not have adequate policies, processes and practices for responding to complaints of child sexual abuse.
• [W]e examined the responses of persons in positions of authority at Yeshiva Bondi and Yeshivah Melbourne to allegations of child sexual abuse against six individuals who were employed by or otherwise associated with the institutions:

1. David Cyprys (a security guard, locksmith, caretaker, volunteer at Camp Gan Israel and martial arts instructor at Yeshivah Melbourne)
2. Rabbi David Kramer (a primary school teacher at Yeshivah College Melbourne)
3. Mr Aron Ezriel Kestecher (a volunteer at Chabad Youth at Yeshivah Melbourne)
4. AVP (the adult son of a senior Yeshivah Melbourne rabbi)
5. Daniel Hayman (an active member of the Yeshiva Bondi community)
6. AVL (a rabbinical student of the Yeshiva Gedolah Rabbinical College in Bondi).

• We received evidence from four survivors of child sexual abuse within the Yeshiva Bondi and Yeshivah Melbourne communities:

1. Mr Manny Waks, who told us that he was sexually abused by AVP in 1998 and by Cyprys from around 1988 to 1990 
2. AVA, who told us that he was sexually abused by Cyprys between 1986 and 1989
3. AVB, who told us that he was sexually abused by Cyprys in around 1984–1985 and by Hayman in around 1987–1988
4. AVR, who told us that he was sexually abused by Cyprys in 1991.

• In addition, Mr Zephaniah Waks, Manny Waks’ father, told us about the response of Yeshivah Melbourne to the sexual abuse of Mr Manny Waks by AVP and Cyprys, and one of his younger sons by Kramer in 1992. We also received redacted police statements from a male survivor and a female survivor, each of whom described being sexually abused by Hayman in 1985 or 1986 and 1989 respectively.
• In the cases we examined, when children or their parents made contemporaneous disclosures of child sexual abuse to persons in positions of authority in Yeshiva Bondi and Yeshivah Melbourne, the responses to those disclosures were similar. Children were disbelieved or ignored, the police were not informed, and alleged perpetrators were either left in positions with continued access to children or were quietly removed. Despite receiving multiple complaints from the mid-1980s to 2000 that Cyprys and Hayman had sexually abused children, Yeshivah Melbourne and Yeshiva Bondi took no action. As a result, Cyprys and Hayman continued to sexually abuse children at Yeshivah Melbourne and Yeshiva Bondi. Following receipt of complaints against Kramer and AVL, in the early 1990s and early 2000s respectively, these alleged perpetrators were allowed to travel overseas. Kramer was later convicted of child sexual offences committed overseas. 
• The earliest complaint to then head rabbi of Yeshivah Melbourne, Rabbi Groner, concerning sexual abuse of a child by Cyprys, about which we received evidence, was in 1984. Following receipt of this complaint, Rabbi Groner did not remove Cyprys from the Yeshivah Centre Melbourne. We found that there was no evidence that Rabbi Groner took any steps in response to the allegations against Cyprys at the time. Cyprys was convicted in August 2013 on a charge of gross indecency upon the boy whose father had made the 1984 complaint.
• ​AVA told us that the following Monday he was sent by the principal of Yeshivah College Melbourne, Rabbi Glick, to see Rabbi Groner. Rabbi Groner assured him that he would ‘look after’ the situation with Cyprys. He did not offer AVA any counselling or other assistance. Cyprys was not removed from the school and he continued to sexually abuse AVA for another two years. We found that there was no evidence that Rabbi Groner took any steps in response to the allegations by AVA against Cyprys in 1986.
• Another survivor, AVR, told us of his repeated sexual abuse by Cyprys at Yeshivah Melbourne, beginning around 1991 when he was a student at the Yeshivah College Melbourne. After AVR told his mother about the sexual abuse in 1991, she travelled to Melbourne, contacted Rabbi Groner about it, and went with AVR to report it to Rabbi Glick. AVR told us that Rabbi Glick then said that his scholarship to the college had been cancelled. Rabbi Glick told us he had no recollection of such a complaint and that he did not deal with financial matters and scholarships. We found that there was no evidence that Yeshivah Centre Melbourne took any steps in response to the allegations by AVR against Cyprys in 1991. AVR told us that, as a result of his disclosure of child sexual abuse by Cyprys, he and his mother were ostracised by the Yeshivah Melbourne community.
• ​We found that Rabbi Groner’s response to reported incidents of child sexual abuse, including those involving Cyprys, was wholly inadequate. We also found that the nature and frequency of reports to Rabbi Groner strongly suggested a pattern of total inaction.
• According to the statement, when the boys reported the sexual abuse by Hayman, Rabbi Lesches [senior rabbi at the Yeshiva Gedolah Rabbinical College where Hayman was a volunteer] responded, ‘Oh, we have a problem with him [and] I will deal with it’. He did not suggest that the boys seek counselling or contact the police.
• She stated that she reported her experience to Rabbi Lesches, who had been given responsibility for her care in Sydney by her father. She recalled that Rabbi Lesches responded, ‘I do not believe you. Why would you invent such a story?’. She said he told her to, ‘Go to school. Get over it’.
• After being informed of the termination of his employment, Kramer told Mr Cooper that he would challenge the ‘unfair dismissal’. Mr Cooper offered an alternative: immediate departure to Israel on an airline ticket paid for by the Yeshivah College Melbourne. Kramer left a day or two later.
• When a school in northern Israel subsequently contacted Mr Cooper about an application for employment by Kramer, Mr Cooper was less than frank in his explanation as to why Kramer should not be employed. He advised only that ‘he had left Melbourne under a cloud’.
• Kramer later moved to the United States, where he was convicted of serious child sexual offences and sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment. In December 2011, Victoria Police charged Kramer with offences of child sexual abuse against children at Yeshivah Melbourne and he was extradited to Australia, where he was convicted.
• Rabbi Yosef Feldman met privately with AVL. During their discussion, AVL admitted that he had lain with and massaged a child.
• Rabbi Pinchus Feldman told us that he ‘did not believe that [he] had that obligation’ to report to police that a complaint had been made concerning AVL and that he believed AVL might leave the country. Similarly, Rabbi Yosef Feldman said that, while he thought the behaviour both highly inappropriate and suggestive of being sexual in nature, he did not recognise that AVL’s conduct was a crime or that it was possible that AVL would be charged with a criminal offence. 
• Neither Rabbi Pinchus Feldman nor Rabbi Yosef Feldman took any steps to inform anyone that AVL was contemplating leaving Australia. AVL left Australia soon afterwards and travelled to New York.
• We heard that action was taken to silence survivors and that they were shunned. We also heard about limited efforts made by Yeshiva Bondi and Yeshivah Melbourne to provide redress to survivors of child sexual abuse and that survivors did not receive direct, personal apologies from the relevant institutions.
• We found that there was no evidence that Rabbi Groner took any steps in response to Mr Manny Waks’ report in 1996.
• We found that there was no evidence that Rabbi Groner took any steps in response to Mr Manny Waks’ report in 2000. Cyprys continued to perform guarding and security patrol activities for Yeshivah Melbourne until at least 2003 and continued to attend Yeshivah Melbourne premises up until 2011.
• [I]n 2013, Cyprys was convicted on five counts of rape against AVR for offences committed in 1990–1991. Following this conviction, Cyprys pleaded guilty to a further 12 offences of child sexual abuse. Two of those offences related to the sexual abuse of AVA. Three offences related to the sexual abuse of Mr Manny Waks. Cyprys was sentenced to a total effective sentence of eight years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of five years and six months.
• We also received an extract from Hayman’s 2013 interview with NSW Police, during which Hayman told the police that he had a vague recollection that Rabbi Pinchus Feldman had spoken to him about his conduct with boys. Rabbi Pinchus Feldman denied any recollection of such a conversation or of Rabbi Lesches informing him of any allegations against Hayman.
• Rabbi Telsner accepted that he did not correct misconceptions about his sermon, and that was a failure in his leadership to adhere to the obligations stated in the 2010 RCV Resolution – to provide pastoral leadership, support, direction and affirmation for child sexual abuse survivors, their families and advocates.
• We found that the timing of the [18 June 2011] sermon and the understanding that it was directed at AVB (comparing AVB’s conduct to the ‘sin of the spies’) was likely to have had the effect of dissuading some members of the Yeshivah Melbourne community from communicating with the civil authorities about child sexual abuse.
• The publication of the article in The Age gave rise to great controversy amongst some members of the Yeshivah Melbourne community. Questions arose as to whether Jewish law permitted such allegations to be made publicly. We found that that view appeared in part to be due to public statements made at that time by Rabbi Telsner of Yeshivah Melbourne on the topic of loshon horo.
• On 16 July 2011, soon after the article in The Age was published, Rabbi Telsner delivered a sermon in response to widespread press coverage of the issue of child sexual abuse. In the sermon, Rabbi Telsner addressed a rhetorical question to the congregants, asking: ‘Who gave you permission to talk to anyone? Which Rabbi gave you permission?’ We found these rhetorical questions could only have added to the impression in the community that discussing child sexual abuse was in breach of loshon horo and therefore a sin.
• Rabbi Telsner gave evidence that he was aware that some community members had been upset by his sermon, that Mr Zephaniah Waks had complained about it and that Mr Manny Waks believed the sermon to have been directed at him. Despite his knowledge about those matters, Rabbi Telsner did not speak publicly to counter community misconceptions and explain that the sermon was not directed at Mr Manny Waks. Rabbi Telsner agreed that his failure to come out and correct the misconceptions he was aware of was a failure in his leadership to adhere to the obligations stated in the 2010 RCV Resolution.
• Rabbi Yosef Feldman questioned the Organisation of Rabbis Australasia’s (ORA) position that all allegations should be reported to the police immediately.
• We found that Rabbi Yosef Feldman expressed similar views in the 21-25 July 2011 emails and the emails of 27 July 2011. These views included that:

1. the prohibition of mesirah was relevant when considering whether to report allegations of child sexual abuse made against a Jewish person to authorities
2. allegations of child sexual abuse should in the first instance be reported to a rabbi, who should investigate and determine whether to report to the authorities
3. a relevant consideration for a rabbi in deciding whether to report an allegation was when the child sexual abuse was committed and whether the perpetrator had repented or changed.

• At the time Rabbi Yosef Feldman expressed these views, he was not an ordinary member of the community. He held the positions of president of the Rabbinical Council of New South Wales and rabbinical administrator at the Yeshiva Gedolah Rabbinical College.
• We were satisfied that Rabbi Yosef Feldman’s statement published in the Australian Jewish News on 26 July 2011 was not a true statement of his beliefs but an exercise in public relations to seek to mitigate damage to his reputation following the public dissemination of the 21-25 July 2011 emails and the controversial views he expressed in these emails about child sexual abuse. We found that the views expressed in the emails of 27 July 2011 are not consistent with the views of a person who unequivocally accepted the 2010 RCV Resolution.
• We found that the application of Jewish law to communications about and reporting of allegations of child sexual abuse to civil authorities – in particular, police – caused significant concern, controversy and confusion amongst members of the Chabad-Lubavitch communities.
• We also found that, because of the way those concepts were applied, some members of those communities were discouraged from reporting child sexual abuse.
• Chabad-Lubavitch communities believe that an ultra-orthodox Jew found to have committed a sin (or a grave sin) should be the subject of official and unofficial community punishment, including religious, social and economic exclusion known as ‘shunning’. 
• [S]ome survivors told us that they and their families experienced such severe ostracism and shunning that they felt unable to remain in the community.
• AVB and Mr Manny Waks each described being ostracised, criticised and bullied by members of the Chabad-Lubavitch community following their disclosures of child sexual abuse. As noted above, AVR also told us that he and his mother were ostracised by the Yeshivah Melbourne community in the early 1990s after they reported the sexual abuse by Cyprys.
• AVB told us that when it became known throughout the Yeshivah Melbourne community that he had attended court to hear Cyprys’ bail application, he was labelled a moser and that as a result he was ostracised and bullied. He told us that his car was vandalised, signs he placed on the community noticeboard were torn down and he was pushed and jostled. He also said that he was denied the religious rite of being called to the Torah.
• AVC is the wife of AVB and mother of their four children. In a written statement, AVC described the pain and suffering that the family endured as a result of the adverse response to AVB’s participation in a police investigation and the response of rabbis at Yeshivah Melbourne to the issue of child sexual abuse.
• Following AVB’s calls for accountability, AVC experienced the loss of friends and invitations, smart quips, clips on the shoulder and vicious accusations shouted out in the synagogue.
• AVC said that, beyond the horrible acts of the perpetrators, she felt that she and AVB were abused a second time by the callous response of the community. As the spouse of a survivor, AVC said she felt hated and isolated in her own community and had lost faith in the leadership of the Jewish community.
• The experience that AVC described was not unique. Mr Zephaniah Waks told us that he and his wife lost most of their friends in 2011 and in the years that followed as a result of their son’s public statements about the sexual abuse. 
• AVB and Mr Zephaniah Waks both described being denied religious honours (aliyah – being called to the Torah) in the synagogue. 
• We also found that members of Mr Manny Waks’ family were secondary victims of the child sexual abuse that he experienced.
• [W]e found that there was no evidence Yeshivah Melbourne ever considered creating a formal redress policy in relation to victims of child sexual abuse.
• In the Institutional review of Yeshiva/h hearing, Rabbi Chaim Tsvi Groner, a rabbi at Yeshivah Centre Melbourne and the son of the late Rabbi Yitzchok Dovid Groner, told us that towards the end of 2015 Yeshivah Melbourne had introduced a redress scheme. We heard that the scheme remained open for a period of only 13 months.
• He told us that during this time approximately 10 victims came forward and were provided with redress. When questioned as to the reason the scheme had remained open for only 13 months, Rabbi Groner told us that it was following the Royal Commission’s recommendation on a redress scheme. It was not clear what Rabbi Groner meant by this statement. At the hearing, Rabbi Groner, who spoke on behalf of Yeshivah Melbourne, undertook to reconsider the length of the scheme.
• Rabbi Pinchus Feldman told us that Yeshiva Bondi had still not developed and was not considering developing a financial redress scheme.
• There was no evidence that it has been a practice of Yeshivah Melbourne to directly apologise to survivors of child sexual abuse.
• Our analysis of the evidence in the Yeshiva Bondi and Yeshivah Melbourne case study led us to identify two central factors that we consider contributed to the inadequate institutional response of the Yeshiva Bondi and Yeshivah Melbourne communities to child sexual abuse. The first of these relates to the governance, structure and leadership of Yeshiva Bondi and Yeshivah Melbourne. It includes the inadequacy of child sexual abuse policies and the absence of support for survivors of child sexual abuse from the institutional leadership. It also includes failure to deal with conflicts of interest and the concentration of power and absolute authority in the rabbis and, ultimately, the emissaries. The second factor relates to the beliefs and practices of insular Chabad-Lubavitch communities, including the absence of sex education or awareness about child sexual abuse, the importance of maintaining standing in the community, the application of Jewish law concepts such as loshon horo and mesirah to communication about and reporting of child sexual abuse, and the practice of shunning.
• We consider that a reverence for rabbinical leaders and lack of oversight contributed to a lack of scrutiny of the responses of the rabbis to allegations of child sexual abuse. 
• [W]e heard that, despite the clear guidance set out in the 2010 RCV Resolution, some rabbis at Yeshiva Bondi and Yeshivah Melbourne used their positions within the community to discourage the discussion or reporting of child sexual abuse. We found a marked absence of supportive leadership for survivors of child sexual abuse and their families within Yeshivah Melbourne. We also found the leadership did not create an environment that was conducive to the communication of information about child sexual abuse. Their mixed messages regarding the application of Jewish law to child sexual abuse were likely to have produced inaction on the part of those seeking to discuss or report child sexual abuse.
• We found that the close-knit nature of the community in Melbourne required the leadership of Yeshivah Melbourne to be alive to, and deal transparently with, perceived or actual familial and personal conflicts of interest.
• We also found that the failure to recognise and deal transparently with perceived and actual conflicts of interest contributed to poor governance on the part of the Committee of Management at Yeshivah Melbourne.
• Rabbi Pinchus Feldman told us that he did not feel that conflicts of interests were an issue in the Yeshiva Bondi community and that, as a result, no policies have been implemented to address actual and perceived conflicts of interest at the Yeshiva Centre in Bondi.
• We found that, in some instances, there was limited knowledge about sex and limited sex education, which:  

1. affected perceptions of child sexual abuse amongst members of the Chabad-Lubavitch communities
2. adversely impacted upon survivors’ comprehension of and response to events of child sexual abuse
3. gave rise to difficulty in communicating on the subject and making reports.

• [S]enior leaders at both Yeshiva Bondi and Yeshivah Melbourne had the opportunity to dispel concern, controversy and confusion amongst the community over the application of these concepts to cases of child sexual abuse. Instead, we heard that their actions gave the impression that loshon horo and mesirah were applicable to communication about and reporting of child sexual abuse. We consider that the actions of these leaders probably had the effect of dissuading some members of the Yeshivah Melbourne community from communicating with the civil authorities about child sexual abuse.
• It is important that senior leaders within Chabad communities continue to ensure that members of the community are aware that the concepts of loshon horo, arka’ot and mesirah have no application in the case of child sexual abuse. 
• Recommendation 16.30: All Jewish institutions in Australia should ensure that their complaint handling policies explicitly state that the halachic concepts of mesirah, moser and loshon horo do not apply to the communication and reporting of allegations of child sexual abuse to police and other civil authorities.
• Chabad-Lubavitch communities believe that an ultra-orthodox Jew found to have committed a sin (or a grave sin) should be the subject of official and unofficial community punishment, including religious, social and economic exclusion known as ‘shunning’. 
• [S]ome survivors told us that they and their families experienced such severe ostracism and shunning that they felt unable to remain in the community.
• We consider that the practice by some in Chabad-Lubavitch communities of shunning survivors of child sexual abuse and their family members was wrong and caused them great distress.
• We agree that all survivors of child sexual abuse are deserving of support and assistance from their communities, and even more so from those in positions of authority in the institutions where the sexual abuse occurred.
• The responses of Yeshiva Bondi and Yeshivah Melbourne to allegations of child sexual abuse showed some remarkable similarities. When children or their parents made contemporaneous disclosures of sexual abuse to persons in positions of authority, they were disbelieved or ignored, and alleged perpetrators were either left in positions with continued access to children or were quietly removed from the institution.
• With respect to Cyprys and Hayman, the absence of any action by those in positions of authority after receiving allegations of child sexual abuse allowed these perpetrators to continue to sexually abuse children within the Yeshiva/h communities. This included the sexual abuse of Mr Manny Waks and AVA, for which Cyprys was convicted in 2013; the repeated rape of AVR, for which Cyprys was convicted in 2013; and the violent sexual assault of AVB, for which Hayman was convicted in 2014.
• If action was taken in response to allegations of child sexual abuse, this occurred ‘in-house’. In two cases, alleged perpetrators of child sexual abuse were allowed to leave Australia after allegations were made against them to persons in positions of authority at Yeshiva Bondi and Yeshivah Melbourne. One of these alleged perpetrators was subsequently convicted of further sexual offences against children that were committed overseas. 
• In the cases that we examined, the institutional responses to survivors of child sexual abuse who reported the abuse years after it occurred were dismal. Rather than supporting survivors or assisting them through the process of reporting allegations to police and during and after criminal proceedings, community leaders of Yeshiva Bondi and Yeshivah Melbourne made efforts to silence survivors and to condemn those who would not be silent. Members of the relevant communities shunned survivors and their families, which added to their suffering and may also have deterred other survivors from coming forward. Neither the Yeshiva Bondi nor the Yeshivah Melbourne community leaders provided direct, personal apologies to the survivors who did come forward, either for the child sexual abuse which they suffered or for the manner in which the institutions handled their complaints. Moreover, at least until our Institutional review of Yeshiva/h hearing, efforts to provide redress to survivors were limited. Statements made during that hearing supportive of the provision of redress should be followed by concrete action in consultation with survivors.
• We found that, at least until 2007, these institutions did not have adequate policies, procedures and practices for responding to complaints of child sexual abuse. 
• Within each community, the head rabbi was considered to be the spiritual head of the community. However, there was no overarching external rabbinical authority to which rabbis could be held accountable. We consider that a reverence for rabbinical leaders and lack of oversight contributed to an absence of scrutiny of responses of rabbis to allegations of child sexual abuse.
• We also found that the failure to recognise and deal transparently with perceived and actual conflicts of interest contributed to poor governance on the part of the Committee of Management at Yeshivah Melbourne. We found a marked absence of supportive leadership for survivors of child sexual abuse and their families within Yeshivah Melbourne. We also found the leadership did not create an environment that was conducive to the communication of information about child sexual abuse.
• Finally, we found that the manner in which some cultural beliefs and practices, including Jewish law concepts, were applied in Yeshiva Bondi and Yeshivah Melbourne contributed to their inadequate institutional responses to child sexual abuse. 

---